



















Copyright N?_ 


COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 






















THE RESURRECTION GOSPEL 

By JESSE R. KELLEMS, B.D., D.D. 







































































Picture of Long Beach Christian Church, Long Beach, Calif. 














The 

Resurrection Gospel 


AND OTHER SERMONS DELIVERED 
AT THE FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 
LONG BEACH, CAL., JANUARY, 1922 


BY 


JESSE R. KELLEMS, B.D., D.D. 

A Minister of the Churches of Christ 


WITH INTRODUCTION 
BY 

GEORGE P. TAUBMAN, D.D. 


“Preach the word; be urgent in season, 
out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort 
with all lon&sufferin& and teaching.” 

—2 Tim. 4: 2 


THE STANDARD PUBLISHING COMPANY 
CINCINNATI, O. 






Copyrighted, 1924, by 
The Standard Publishing Company 




APR 28 *24 


DEDICATION 


To one of the grandest Christian women this 
world has ever known, or ever will know, 
my mother, this book is lovingly dedicated 



CONTENTS 


Page 

Preface. 11 

Introduction....... 15 

I. 

The Resurrection Gospel ...... 19 

II. 

Hell ...._....... 59 

III. 

Warming at the Devil’s Fire.... 83 

IV. 

Saving Faith_ 105 

V. 

The Philosophy of Repentance..... 122 

VI. 

The Good Confession-- 140 

VII. 

The Baptism of Jesus ....----- 157 

VIII. 

Three Answers to the Same Question-- 175 








12 


Preface 


how of committing men to Christ. And those books 
are being written, written with the dignity and scien¬ 
tific grasp which will give them a permanent place 
in Christian literature. 

Books of sermons are also needed. Not only is it 
essential that we know how we are to approach men, 
and what should be the content of the message 
delivered, but it is also as vitally necessary that speci¬ 
mens of that message in the form in which it has 
been successfully presented by men whom God has 
blessed with results for the Kingdom, be written and 
preserved. The author’s whole view of the gospel 
was molded by the sermons of these giants of the 
early days of the Restoration movement, those ser¬ 
mons which carved out a brotherhood. Benjamin 
Franklin, in his two volumes of 4 ‘The Gospel 
Preacher”; Dr. T. W. Brents, in “The Gospel Plan 
of Salvation”; John W. McGarvey, in his “Sermons”; 
President Zollars, in “The Commission Executed”— 
these, and many others, were the books which set him 
on fire. There is no better way for the preacher to 
get hold of the evangelistic message than to read that 
message as it was preached by the great evangelists. 

There is still another reason why sermon books 
should be written. Men are converted to-day by read¬ 
ing gospel messages. The preacher is too often apt to 
underestimate the value of the written sermon in 
bringing men to surrender. Recently, while in a 
meeting in a certain Indiana city, a happy-faced man 
came to the author and thanked him for a former book 
of sermons, saying: “Brother Kellems, my wife bought 
it for me. I refused to attend your meeting when you 
were in my town, but after reading the book I con- 


Preface 


13 


fessed the Savior and am to-day an officer in the 
church/ ’ There is, therefore, a twofold reason for 
bringing the present work into being: (1) That it may 
help others who would bring men to Christ, and (2) 
that it may be used of the Master in leading lost ones 
to know Him. 

The general technique of the book is in harmony 
with its purpose. It is not written for scholars with 
the heaviness and dryness which so often attaches to 
such work. It is w r ritten to men—to men who want 
the truth stated in clear and simple language, to men 
whose first desire is that they may understand. Some 
of the sermons are fuller than others. It has been 
the author’s aim throughout to write as he speaks, to 
infuse as much of his own personality into the book 
as possible. It is not his desire to make the work 
merely an outline of sermons. Too many sermon 
books expose themselves to this criticism. He has 
tried to clothe the outline of each sermon with flesh 
and blood that it may throb with life and action. 

The author can not refrain here from expressing his 
sincere appreciation of the kind and urgent request of 
Bro. George P. Taubman, with whom he has been 
happily associated in two long evangelistic meetings, 
for the publication of the present book as a memorial 
to the last of those campaigns in the great church at 
Long Beach, California. Those joyous days of fellow¬ 
ship with friends as close as brothers in blood can be, 
will forever live in his memory. 

He wishes also to express his appreciation of the 
kindness of two friends, Bro. Carrol Flewelling, M.A., 
minister of the Christian Temple, Wellsville, New 
York, and of Mrs. Dean Turley, of Lincoln, Nebraska, 


14 


Preface 


for their kindness in correcting the manuscript. In 
the hope that the purpose for which it was written 
may be accomplished, the author sends this volume 
forth with gladness. j. r. k. 

Sagamore Lodge, Wellsville, N. Y. 


INTRODUCTION 


“Wholesale conversions” is the term which 
describes the result of the preaching of the apostles 
and their coadjutors. Converts were not added to the 
early church only by twos or threes or small groups. 
Men and women were added by multitudes, and that 
in a time when faith was tested by the bitterest persecu¬ 
tion. Turn to the pages of the Book of Acts, and 
you will find expressions like these: “There were 
added about three thousand souls” (2:41) ; “And the 
number of adult men came to be about five thousand” 
(4:4); “And the multitudes of those who believed” 
(4:32); “Multitudes both of men and women;” and 
so the story runs. Whole communities turned to the 
Lord. True, we have a few instances where they 
failed. Even Paul seemed to have failed, as some one 
has suggested that the meager results at Mars’ Hill 
came because he preached philosophy rather than 
the message which so stirred Derbe, Lystra and 
Iconium. Be that as it may, “wholesale conversions” 
seem to have been the rule of their success. 

In a Southern California convention some years 
ago, an officer spoke in a spirit of depreciation of a 
time when there was in our history that which he 
called “rampant evangelism.” Folk were turning to 
the Lord in too great numbers; at least, the organized 
activities could not assist all in building meeting¬ 
houses and in hiring preachers. The writer was so 

15 


16 


Introduction 


struck by that term “rampant evangelism/’ that he 
looked it up, and in the light of the definition again 
read several chapters of the Book of Acts, and he came 
to the conclusion that the evangelism of Acts was quite 
adequately described by the word “rampant.” It 
was a “bounding, unrestrained evangelism.” The late 
W. E. Harlow told the writer that the editor of one 
•of our periodicals wired him to close the meeting he 
was holding in Joplin, about fifteen years ago, as too 
many converts had been made already. God knows 
there has been comparatively little of this sort of evan¬ 
gelism in the last decade or two. 

Now, these two terms, “wholesale conversions” and 
‘ ‘ rampant evangelism, ’ ’ not only describe the evan¬ 
gelism of the Acts of Apostles and the results, but 
also the history of the Restoration movement up to 
less than twenty-five years ago. For some time it has 
hardly been rampant or wholesale, and we are just 
now appreciating that we have lost unspeakably 
because we departed from old paths and programs. 

But, the conversion of America and of the whole 
world depends—and that only and altogether—upon 
that sort of evangelism and that sort of results. The 
present generation in the United States can be won to 
Christ only by a bounding evangelism which will 
attack every city, hamlet, home and heart for Christ 
in the next twenty-five years—or sixty millions of 
our own people will be lost. How can China’s mil¬ 
lions, who are dying at the rate of 1,700,000 per 
month, be won to Christ by any other evangelism 
than a rampant evangelism which, bounding through 
her 430,000,000 people, brings them to Christ by the 
wholesale ? 


Introduction 


17 


To bring this to pass, we need a teaching evan¬ 
gelism. We need an evangelistic literature more ex¬ 
tensive and complete. We need more men of the type 
of the author of this book. We need more sermons of 
the type of the contents of this volume. We need 
evangelistic campaigns such as are being held by 
this author and his helpers. 

The sermons published in this volume were delivered 
by Jesse Kellems in the new building of the First 
Christian Church, Long Beach, California, a few weeks 
after dedicating; that is, in January and part of 
February, 1922. During this campaign a total of 
392 lives were added to the church, the majority by 
confession and baptism. Large audiences attended 
throughout the five weeks, and on the Lord’s Days 
hundreds were turned away from an auditorium which 
seats twenty-five hundred on its three floors. This 
large ingathering was recorded in spite of the fact 
that 129 had been added at the regular services dur¬ 
ing December, the month preceding the meeting. 
Moreover, the same evangelist, assisted by his brother, 
Homer Kellems, conducted a meeting in the winter of 
1917 which resulted in adding 235 to the church, and 
during the latter meeting a group of churches con¬ 
ducted a so-called union campaign in the Municipal 
Auditorium. 

One of the outstanding features of the campaign 
was the very large number of men and boys who ac¬ 
cepted Christ. Sixty-four husbands and wives ac¬ 
cepted a New Testament basis for unity in the family 
as well as the church. How is this accounted for? 
Not by trick or claptrap method, for this church has 
had no reason to apologize for the life, message or 


18 


Introduction 


methods of the evangelist. This evangelism is, like 
that of the New Testament, a teaching evangelism. 
“Knowing, therefore, the fear of the Lord, we per¬ 
suade men.” This is the outstanding feature of the 
work of Evangelist Kellems. Folk are taught that 
“faith is the belief of testimony, or confidence in testi¬ 
mony as true”; that the commands of Christ are to be 
obeyed now, as they were obeyed in New Testament 
times; that “the denominations” and “the com¬ 
munions” are equivalent to sects, and that sectari¬ 
anism, which is division, is sinful; that the world is 
to be evangelized only by a united church; and that 
the church can be united only by restoring the New 
Testament ideal. 

The Restoration movement, especially, and the re¬ 
ligious world in general, are indebted to Jesse Kellems 
for his contributions to a teaching evangelism 
and an evangelistic literature. The First Christian 
Church of Long Beach is honored in that this volume 
is to commemorate the two campaigns conducted by 
the author. Those ministers who have lost the char¬ 
acteristics of the generation which produced the 
Restoration movement will be able to regain that 
fine evangelistic fervor by a careful reading of these 
sermons. Morover, place this volume, at once so 
scholarly and simple—with a copy of the New 
Testament, in the hands of an honest unbeliever who 
has the courage of his convictions, and the result 
will be inevitably a Christian, and a Christian only. 
The First Christian Church of Long Beach will be 
asking God to bless the author whenever “we have 
the ear of the King.” Geo. P. Taubman. 


I. 

THE RESURRECTION GOSPEL 


Texts. —“But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither 
hath Christ been raised: and if Christ hath not been raised, then is 
our preaching vain; your faith also is vain. Yea, and we are found 
false witnesses of God, because we witnessed of God that he 
raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead 
are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ 
been raised: and if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is 
vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also that have fallen 
asleep in Christ have perished. If we have only hoped in Christ 
in this life, we are of all men most pitiable. ff —1 Cor. 15: 13-19. 

“And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord 
Jesus. “—Luke 24: 3. 

T HE above statement of the apostle Paul—“ye are 
yet in your sins’’—is not a mere petulant remark. 
It is sober truth. Everything that the word “Chris¬ 
tian” means; everything that the experience of being 
a Christian implies—has its foundation in the fact of 
the resurrection. “If Christ hath not been raised, 
then is our preaching vain; your faith also is vain.” 
The Greek word for vain, here, is kenon, which means 
“nothing in it,” or “without content.” But the 
preaching of Paul was not without content, a message 
with nothing in it. It was a message of mighty power. 
It shook men to the very foundations of their souls, 
and transformed the world. A nature so passionate 
and intense as that of the great apostle never could 
have been stirred with a message which had nothing 

19 


20 


The Resurrection Gospel 


in it. There was something tremendous in that 
message. To change a man like Paul, the message 
must have its foundation in sober fact. “If Christ hath 
not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your 
sins.” The word here translated “vain” is mataia, 
which has a slightly different meaning from the word 
used just before. It means “futile” or “to no pur¬ 
pose,” “insipid.” What the apostle here means is 
that, if Christ has not been raised from the dead, 
all that ye have believed is of no avail. There can 
not be even the shadow of doubt that, in these words, 
Paul makes the resurrection of the Lord Jesus the 
very keystone of the mighty arch of Christian faith. 
It was the heart and soul of his own preaching unto 
death. It was the basis of all that the apostles and 
early preachers had to say of the Lord Jesus. How 
glowingly has Professor Denny expressed it: “The 
primary testimony of the disciples to Jesus was their 
testimony to His resurrection; except as risen and 
exalted, they never preached Jesus at all. It was 
His resurrection and exaltation which made Him 
Lord and Christ, and gave Him His place in their 
faith and life; and unless their testimony to this 
fundamental fact can be accepted, it is not worth 
while to carry the investigation further. Nothing 
that Jesus was or did, apart from the resurrection, 
can justify or sustain the religious life which we see 
in the New Testament.” 1 

When we think of the resurrection in apostolic 
preaching, it should always be borne in mind that 
they never did preach it merely as a fact. They 
could have done this, for, to them, it was a fact, so 

1 “Jesus and the Gospel,” Denny, p. 97 . 



The Resurrection Gospel 


21 


well attested that they were willing to give their 
lives in the preaching of it. What the early Chris¬ 
tians did preach was the gospel of the resurrection. 
They did not preach it to psychologists or meta¬ 
physicians as a thing in itself or as a fact simply 
to be known as a fact. It was preached to sinful 
men with all its divine significance to their salva¬ 
tion. It was the good news, or gospel of the resur¬ 
rection, because it implied all that reconciliation to 
God meant. All that immortality could signify to 
yearning hearts was rooted and grounded in the 
glorious fact that Christ had come forth triumphant 
from the grave. To miss this aspect of the apostolic 
and early Christian witness is to miss all. The gos¬ 
pel of the resurrection is a moral power. Looking 
at it from the broad standpoint, every form of 
Christian experience derives its meaning from it. No 
matter what form that experience may take—study 
any aspect of it you may choose—the inevitable con¬ 
clusion is that if the resurrection is denied, the gos¬ 
pel of our Lord loses its reality and force in life. 

There were three facts accomplished by the death 
of Jesus, and the events which followed it, which 
are admitted by both the friends and the enemies of 
Christianity. 

3. That Jesus actually died upon a Roman cross, 
and that His body was buried in the new tomb of 
Joseph of Arimathaea; that a great stone was rolled 
before the door of the tomb and the seal of the 
Roman governor affixed; that a guard was stationed 
about it to see that no one molested it. 

2. That sometime before the third morning after 
this the body disappeared. 


22 


The Resurrection Gospel 


3. That the disciples, after the first fear and 
consternation occasioned by the events of the cruci¬ 
fixion, came to believe with unshakeable confidence 
that their beloved Master had been raised from the 
dead. 

Up to this place there is absolute accord. No dis¬ 
senting voice is heard. It is at this point that the 
battle begins. What became of the body ? What 
happened at the tomb to give birth to the mightiest 
message the world, in its sinfulness and hopeless¬ 
ness, has ever heard? This is the point at which the 
conflict is joined. It has well been styled “the bat¬ 
tle over an empty grave/ ’ 

Dismissing the swoon theory which maintains that 
Jesus never really died at all, but that He swooned 
upon the cross and revived in the cool, damp air of 
the grave, we will proceed to the consideration of two 
propositions only (1) What became of the body? 
and (2) how can we explain the universally acknowl¬ 
edged faith of the disciples, a faith so wonderful that 
it created the New Testament, the Lord’s Day, and 
the Christian church? 

I. What Became of the Body of Jesus? 

In the very nature of things, there were but three 
things which could have happened to it. 

1. It could have been taken away from the grave 
by the enemies of Jesus. 

2. It could have been stolen by the disciples to 
make it appear that He had risen from the dead. 

3. It could have been raised from the dead by the 
power of God. 

Let us consider these three possibilities in detail. 


The Resurrection Gospel 


23 


1 . Did the enemies of the Lord steal the body f 
(1) They could have had no motive for stealing 
it. The body was already in their possession. The 
disciples were weak and unarmed and without incli¬ 
nation to make any attempt to secure the body by 
force. The seal of the Roman governor was upon the 
great stone and a guard of Roman soldiers was sta¬ 
tioned near, with all the authority of Rome at their 
backs. Nothing more could have been done to make 
the position of the body more secure. Even the plac¬ 
ing of the seal was such that the slightest disturbance 
would have been immediately detected. The large 
stone, the “Golel,” was rolled against the door of the 
tomb. Against this was leaned the small one, the 
“Dopheq.” Where the two stones touched, the seal 
was affixed. It was to the interest of those responsi¬ 
ble for the placing of this guard to see to it that the 
body remained right where they had placed it, and 
every precaution was taken; for only in its safety 
could they triumph over the disciples. They were 
anticipating a disappearance of the body of Jesus, 
and took the consequent precautions against it. The 
fact that the disciples had no such expectation can be 
easily explained. The priests and the disciples would 
have radically different reactions to the oft-repeated 
predictions of Jesus that He would die and rise again. 
To the disciples this was a dark parable, a deep say¬ 
ing, which they could never contemplate with com¬ 
posure ; a word to bring consternation and fear 
to their hearts. And it is significant that this was 
the attitude they took whenever Jesus spoke of dying 
and rising again. To the priests, however, the predic¬ 
tion of His death was easily understood, for they, too, 


24 


The Resurrection Gospel 


expected it, since they had deliberately planned it. 
They knew they were going to kill Him. It was 
natural for them to think that the disciples had 
understood His remarks about His resurrection as they 
had understood them, and, fearing that there had been 
a conspiracy between Jesus and His disciples to 
obtain and hide His body, and then preach a gospel 
of resurrection, these priests employed every means 
within their power to thwart such an effort. That 
which actually came to pass was what they most 
dreaded and was wholly unanticipated by the disciples. 

(2) That the enemies of Jesus had not stolen the 
body, and that they were in no way responsible for its 
disappearance, is conclusively proven by their attitude 
on the day of Pentecost. 

Six weeks after the happening at the tomb, Peter, 
on the day of Pentecost, boldly proclaimed the resur¬ 
rection gospel in the same city where Jesus had 
preached, lived, suffered and died. For the first time 
the good news of the resurrected and exalted Lord is 
preached in power to sinners. Surely this was the 
opportunity of the enemies. If they had taken the 
body, here was their chance to have produced it and 
routed the disciples in confusion. Everything Peter 
preached that day with such dramatic effect could 
have been undone if those who were the Lord’s 
enemies had but come forward with the body. This 
they did not do, for they could not do it. The body 
was not in their possession, nor had it been since that 
wonderful Easter morning. The remarkable thing 
about this is that not only did they do nothing at all 
to destroy the testimony of Peter, but, after his ser¬ 
mon, three thousand of those who had but a little 


The Resurrection Oospel 


25 


time before been a frenzied mob, howling like a 
pack of maddened wolves for the blood of Jesus, con¬ 
fessed their faith in the Lord whom they had cruci¬ 
fied and who had arisen from the grave, were baptized 
into His name, and were constituted the first church 
of Christ in the world. No, the enemies of Christ did 
not steal His body. Its disappearance from the tomb 
filled them with amazement and consternation. 

There is a wonderful evidential value in the time 
and place of this first Pentecost in the history of the 
church. 1 The Pentecost of a false religion would have 
been a thousand miles removed in space, and a hun¬ 
dred or more years in time, from its original events. 
Is it not highly significant that the Pentecost of this 
genuinely historical religion occurred in the same 
place where those original events had transpired and 
but fifty days from the time of their occurrence? The 
miracles of superstition are published long years after 
their reputed happening and far distant from their 
assumed setting. But Jesus had suffered in Jerusalem. 
In Jerusalem He had been beaten and execrated and 
spit upon. In Jerusalem He had been scourged. It 
was in Jerusalem that the cruel crown of thorns had 
been pressed upon His noble brow. In Jerusalem He 
had been lifted up on the cross, and between the dark¬ 
ening heavens and the quaking earth had been tor¬ 
tured until death had mercifully brought an end to 
His suffering. Was it not eminently fitting, then, that 
in Jerusalem He should be vindicated, that in Jerusa¬ 
lem He should be glorified and exalted? Is it not 
unanswerable that in the place where He suffered most 
He should first be preached as Prince and Savior and 


1 “The Resurrection of Our Lord,” Milligan, pp. 52-55. 



26 


The Resurrection Gospel 


that from such preaching the first church of Christ 
should be born? The whole attitude of the enemies— 
their cunning in guarding the body, and then their 
glad acceptance of Him as Redeemer and Lord after 
the disappearance of the body—is a tremendous wit¬ 
ness in favor of the genuineness and certainty of the 
apostolic testimony. 

2. Bid the disciples of the Lord steal the body to 
make it appear that He had risen from the dead? 

(1) The testimony of the Roman guard that this is 
what had happened is so manifestly false and so 
utterly absurd that it calls for but brief attention. 

a. How did they know that the disciples had stolen 
the body if they were asleep at the time of its dis¬ 
appearance? Such testimony as this would be 
laughed out of any court in the world. They could 
have testified that when they awoke the seal of the 
governor was broken, the stone rolled away and the 
body gone, but as to the manner of its going they 
could not have testified because they did not know. 

b. The further absurdity of this bald-faced fabrica¬ 
tion is manifest in the fact that, if what they said had 
been true, they never would have told their officers. 
According to the Roman military law, it was a capital 
offense for a soldier to be found asleep while on his 
post of duty. Knowing this well, the soldiers would 
never have told this to their superiors, for, had it 
been true, it would have meant that they were delib¬ 
erately inviting death upon themselves. There was no 
need for any of the men to sleep, or even to become 
sleepy, while on guard. There were from fifteen to 
sixty men in the quarternion, and the guard was 
changed every six hours. Not all of the men, there- 


The Resurrection Gospel 


27 


fore, would have been asleep at the same time, or so 
soundly asleep that none would have been disturbed 
by the moving of the stone, which was “very great .” 
For these reasons the officers placed no credence in 
the story at all, as is evidenced by the fact that none 
of the men were ever brought to trial or even accused. 
Had the officers believed the story, they would have 
immediately punished the men for this gross infringe¬ 
ment of the Roman military law. The whole story is 
so manifestly a deliberate fabrication that it is almost 
unworthy of consideration. 

(2) The disciples could have had no motive for 
stealing the body, or in any way disturbing it. We 
freely admit that if they had had a motive, it would 
have been that they might proclaim a gospel of resur¬ 
rection. No other of any kind can be imagined. They 
could not of their own power make Jesus alive. Their 
hopes of the kingdom of God were blasted forever. 
They expected to see Jesus again only when the glad 
morning of the final resurrection should dawn over the 
eastern hills. Like the enemies, they were satisfied 
with the disposition of the body of their beloved 
teacher. He was in the new tomb of Joseph of Ari- 
mathaea, who was himself a secret disciple of the Lord. 
Would not the disciples know of his discipleship ? Of 
an event so important would they be ignorant ? 
Then, also, none realized more clearly than they the 
hopelessness of their position nor how utterly power¬ 
less they were. Even though the thought may have 
once come to them to steal the body and boldly preach 
a resurrection gospel, they knew well that they could 
not do it. But a close study of the beliefs of the dis¬ 
ciples concerning the resurrection in general and the 


28 


The Resurrection Gospel 


predictions of Jesus in particular discloses the fact 
that they did not expect Him to rise until the final 
resurrection day. In common with all the Jews, they 
had considered the question of a future resurrection. 
The Pharisees believed in a literal resurrection of the 
very body which had died and been buried. The 
very flesh would be raised. Some even taught that 
the dead would be raised in the very clothes in which 
they had died. Others went so far as to claim that 
if a man had been a cripple in this life, he would be 
a cripple in the resurrection. If he had been blind 
here, he would be blind in the next life. In essence 
their belief was in reanimation or the reawakening of 
the body. The Sadducees, on the other hand, did 
not believe in the resurrection at all. They believed 
that when death came all was ended. All the ancient 
authorities agree that this was their gloomy position. 

The teaching of Jesus Himself concerning the 
resurrection was given in His answer to the Sadducees, 
who had, as they thought, set a trap for Him in their 
question regarding the woman who had married the 
seven brothers. Their trap was not only for Jesus, 
but they wished also to ensnare and humiliate the 
Pharisees, with whom they were constantly at war. 
The question, “In the resurrection therefore whose 
wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her,” 
was an assumption which was the Pharisaical position 
itself that the relations of time obtain in eternity. 
The answer of Jesus brought amazement and silence 
to the Sadducees. The Master first appeals to the 
power of God: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, 
nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they 
neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as 


The Resurrection Gospel 


29 


the angels in heaven” (Matt. 22:29, 30). In the 
resurrection God will not work simply a reanimation, 
a reawakening, but a transformation. This was the 
key of the teaching of the Master concerning the resur¬ 
rection, and it was just this thing that the disciples 
could not understand. This was the glorious element 
in the resurrection of the Lord Himself, that He came 
forth in a glorified body. It was not the same body 
which had been placed in the tomb. Jesus here, how¬ 
ever, was not speaking of His own resurrection, but of 
the resurrection in general. The disciples would not, 
therefore, think of it in any other way, since Jesus 
was not speaking in specific, but in general, terms. 

It is significant that from this time on the disciples 
always thought of Jesus’ teaching as meaning the 
final resurrection at the end of the world whenever 
He spoke of resurrection at all. This formed the basis 
of their faith until after the disappearance of the body 
from the tomb. They were amazed and sorry when¬ 
ever He predicted His own death. But it was all 
dark unto them. They could not understand Him, 
for they could not associate death with Him. 

There are other considerations which prove con¬ 
clusively that the disciples did not expect Jesus to 
rise. The fact that they were all scattered and not in 
one place indicates this. Had they been expectant 
of a resurrection, what would have been more natural 
than that they should have met together in some place 
where they could have been in prayer waiting, as later 
they waited on Pentecost, for the coming of the Holy 
Spirit? But they had gone back to their own work. 
Peter went fishing. Their hopes were blasted and all 
they had dreamed had evaporated into thin air. The 


30 


The Resurrection Gospel 


action of Joseph of Arimathsea and Nicodemus in 
preparing the body of their Lord against corruption 
shows that a resurrection had never entered their 
thoughts. According to the well-known custom of the 
Jews in the burial preparations, the friends of Jesus 
took the body and tenderly wrapped it in linen cloths 
with a mixture of myrrh and aloes. They thought 
their Lord dead, and in their love were preparing the 
body against corruption. The attitude of the women 
at the tomb on the third day is another instance which 
shows the complete absence of expectancy on the part 
of the followers of the Lord that He would come forth 
from the grave. Mary the mother, Mary Magdalene 
and Salome, on the morning of the third day, came 
with spices to the tomb that they might perform one 
more service of love for the poor, broken body of Him 
in whom they had hoped, and on whose words of 
cheer they had so often hung as their hearts beat high 
with the visions of the future glory of those who are 
the children of God. The Sabbath was past and they 
had come to embalm Him. Their conversation about the 
rolling away of the stone, their consternation and 
terror when they found it rolled away, show that they 
did not expect Him to rise. The astonishment also of 
Mary Magdalene, when she came very early in the 
morning and found the body missing, indicates the 
state of mind. She ran to Peter and John, saying: 
“They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know 
where they have laid him” (John 20:9). Her whole 
attitude is one of wonderment and confusion, and not 
that of one to whom the disappearance of the body 
would have brought joy and supreme happiness because 
of a previous expectancy of such a happening. 


The 'Resurrection Gospel 


31 


The attitude of the disciples when Mary came to 
them with her amazing story is a further confirmation 
of the basic fact in the understanding of the apostolic 
testimony as to the resurrection, that they did not 
expect Him to break the bonds of death. She found 
them weeping and mourning. They were shocked, 
and all their hopes were in ruins because of the rapid 
culmination of events which had brought about the 
crucifixion of their Lord. When she told the story 
they did not believe her (Luke 24:12; Mark 16:10, 
11). The conversation of the two disciples on the 
way to Emmaus further indicates the same state of 
mind. “We thought he was the one who should 
redeem Israel.’’ Their whole bearing is that of men 
who had given up. For them the death of the Master 
had ended all. And surely the attitude of Thomas 
completes the story of the absolute amazement of the 
disciples that a story of a resurrection should be told. 
When informed that the Lord had risen, Thomas 
laughed and said that he would not believe until he 
could place his fingers in the prints of the nails and 
his hand into the riven side (John 20:24, 25). 

It is the strongest proof of the honesty of the dis¬ 
ciples in their subsequent testimony that they never, 
for a moment, had an idea that Jesus would come 
back again. And let us not forget that this attitude 
on the subject of His resurrection would not affect 
their belief in His Messiahship. Not once, before the 
death and resurrection, did they ever understand the 
meaning of the Kingdom which Jesus had come to 
establish. Their belief in Him was the belief in a 
Jewish Messiah, the glorious deliverer so long expected 
and desired whose advent would bring freedom to dis- 


32 


The Resurrection Gospel 


traught and ravaged Israel from the iron bonds of im¬ 
perial Rome. He would be a deliverer after the simili¬ 
tude of David or Solomon. They could therefore 
believe in Him as such a Messiah without His death 
in any way affecting their belief. The glorious concep¬ 
tion of Him as the son of God in a sense in which no 
man has ever been the son of God, and in a sense in 
which it will forever be impossible for any man ever 
to be the son of God, was not born until after the 
resurrection, and when it did come it was the most 
wonderful and amazing conception that had ever 
come to any set of men. And this new conception 
was connected in the relation of cause and effect 
with what took place at the new grave in the garden. 

There is but one conclusion in regard to their ex¬ 
pectancy of a resurrection of their Lord. They 
believed Him dead and did not for a moment expect 
Him to arise. In His going their brilliant hopes of a 
glorious temporal kingdom of Israel were irreparably 
blasted. The disappearance of the body from the grave 
caused as much surprise and consternation to the 
friends of Jesus as to the enemies. In the noble words 
of Edersheim: “Behind Him had closed the gates of 
Hades, but upon them rather than Him had fallen the 
shadow of death.” When thus we have taken away 
the possibility of any desire on the part of the dis¬ 
ciples to steal the body that they might make it appear 
that He had risen from the dead, we have removed the 
only possible motive for such an action, and all the 
weight of probability is thrown against their taking it 
away at all. 

(3) But granting, for the sake of argument, that 
any motive strong enough could have been present, 


The Resurrection Gospel 


33 


would it have been physically possible for the dis¬ 
ciples to steal the body? There are many circum¬ 
stances which indicate the utter impossibility of the 
disciples being able to perform any such daring feat. 
Remember that the Roman guard was there from 
fifteen to sixty strong, watchful and alert, knowing 
that if anything happened to that body they would be 
answerable to the authorities with their very lives. The 
hostile Jews by the thousands were there to attend the 
great annual feast of the Passover. Ancient Jerusalem 
was supposed to have covered about three hundred 
acres, or about twice the size of the modern city. 
Josephus says that in the times of the great feasts 
its population was about three millions, while in normal 
times it was from two hundred to two hundred and 
fifty thousand. The city being inadequate for the ac¬ 
commodation of the immense feast-time crowds, those 
unable to get inside were housed in tents or booths all 
round the walls. The place of burial was thus sur¬ 
rounded by thousands of those who were hostile to 
the Master and His people. Remember, also, that the 
stone was very great and that it would be difficult to 
remove it without waking the sleeping guard, if we 
grant that they were all asleep and at the same time. 
It was springtime and the moon was full. Could a 
little band of distracted, unarmed disciples have gone 
into the garden and removed the body after rolling 
away the stone without waking the sleeping soldiers, 
and then escaped from the tents and booths set so 
close together, without being detected. Such a feat 
as this was physically impossible. The man who can 
believe this thing should never say a word about the 
credulity of Christians; for not only can he believe 


34 


The Resurrection Gospel 


without evidence or reason, but he can believe against 
all evidence and reason. The thing could never have 
been done, even granting a motive for it, and this we 
have already found was not present in the hearts of the 
disciples. No, the enemies did not steal the body, and 
the friends did not want to do it and could not have 
done it if they had so desired. There is but one con¬ 
sideration remaining, and that involves examination 
of the testimony of the disciples as to what actually 
happened at the tomb. 

II. How Can We Explain the Testimony of the 
Disciples that Jesus Was Raised from the Dead 
by the Power of God? 

This position has already been established by the 
elimination process. If the enemies did not steal it, 
and if the friends had nothing to do with its removal, 
but one thing could have happened to it, that which 
is given in the universal apostolic testimony, that 
He had been raised from the dead. A considera¬ 
tion of this testimony in regard to its meaning, its 
honesty and its value will her.e be attempted. 

1 . Notice how clear and to the point is the primary 
testimony. 

If one were to have asked any of the early disciples, 
six weeks after the body had disappeared from the 
tomb, “What happened to the body of Jesus?” their 
unhesitating answer would have been, “It w T as raised 
in glory from the dead.” And if he further had 
asked, “How know you this?” the joyful reply would 
have been: “We know because we saw Him after 
His resurrection from the dead. We lived with Him, 
we handled Him, we ate with Him, we heard from 


The Resurrection Gospel 


35 


Him words concerning the future of His glorious 
Kingdom of souls. We to whom there had come not 
even a thought of an immediate resurrection saw Him 
in His risen and exalted state.” This was the uni¬ 
versal testimony of the whole body of those who had 
been devoted followers of the Master. Contrast this 
frank, straightforward testimony with the obvious 
fabrication of the frightened guard: “The disciples 
came by night and stole him away while we were sleep¬ 
ing.” The very frankness of it speaks for it respect¬ 
ful consideration. 

And let us once more remember that, as far 
as the early disciples were concerned, the resurrection 
was not attested to a crowd of metaphysicians or psy¬ 
chologists as a thing in itself. It was the gospel of the 
resurrection which these men preached. As merely a 
fact in itself, they were not interested in it at all. 
They were concerned about it because of its tremendous 
significance in the whole divine scheme of things; in 
its relation to a man’s reconciliation to God; in its 
relation to the life, and consequently to the whole 
spiritual world transcending this vale of tears. Thus 
it is that one must consider the whole body of things 
here, if he is to understand the apostolic witness to 
the resurrection as a fact. If he is not able to appre¬ 
ciate it as a moral fact, then the testimony of these 
early God-intoxicated men will forever be to him incon¬ 
clusive. The disciples were never anxious about estab¬ 
lishing as fact that a man Jesus had been raised from 
the dead. If a group of men had tried to establish 
the fact that a man like Pilate had risen from the 
dead, all the environing conditions would have been 
against them. But these men were witnessing of a 


36 


The Resurrection Gospel 


man of whom it would be least difficult to believe that 
He had been raised from the dead because all His life, 
words and deeds were in moral accord with such an 
event. And it is thus the risen Jesus who hath been 
raised and remains in the risen state as Lord of life 
and glory to whose resurrection the apostles and early 
Christians give exuberant and unshakeable testimony. 
Only such a man as Jesus, only one so pure and good 
and who held such lofty ideas of God and the spiritual 
world, could have risen. And this is the meaning of 
the significant statement of Peter in his first gospel 
sermon as recorded in the second chapter of Acts: 
“Whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of 
death: because it was not possible that he should be 
holden of it” (Acts 2:24). It was as Savior now 
that Peter could preach the Lord, because “he hath 
been raised from the dead.” Therefore he can com¬ 
mand the stricken multitude, as their hoarse cry of 
horror rises in an awful diapason, “Men and brethren, 
what shall we do?”: “Repent ye, and be baptized every 
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the re¬ 
mission of your sins” (Acts 2:38). In order to be 
ordained as an apostle, with the dignity and honor 
that was attached to that office, one must have been 
a witness of the resurrection. At the time of choosing 
one to take the place left vacant by the death of 
Judas, Peter speaks of this fact when he says: “Of 
the men therefore that have companied with us all 
the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among 
us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day 
that he was received up from us, of these must one 
become a witness with us of his resurrection” (Acts 1: 
21, 22). From this time on everything preached and 


The Resurrection Gospel 


37 


believed must find its beginning in the fact that Jesus 
had been raised. It was to be the fundamental of the 
faith. It was thus for its moral significance, its mean¬ 
ing as a gospel, that it was preached to sinful men as 
a message of life and hope, and not simply that it 
might demonstrate the resurrection to a crowd of 
curious men just for the sake of a demonstration. 

2. The honesty of the apostolic testimony is 
apparent. 

As to the matter of the honesty of the apostolic 
testimony we can say but a word. In reality, it is no 
longer seriously questioned. For many years, among 
infidel and skeptical writers in general, the deception 
theory was tenaciously held. In brief it maintained 
that the whole story of the risen Lord was a deliberate 
falsehood. The disciples banded themselves together 
to palm off an imposition upon the world. Thus they 
were baldfaced impostors of the worst type, and the 
whole gospel story from beginning to end was a 
miserable delusion born in a lie. Celsus advocated this 
theory seventeen hundred years ago, and the Jews 
held to it even before that time. If a man’s philoso¬ 
phy finds no room for those things which are decidedly 
and peculiarly Christian, he may embrace this theory 
with avidity; but to the man to whom those things are 
real and vital the whole thing is so preposterous and 
incompatible with all that we know of these devout 
men that he can not give it even a moment of serious 
consideration. There are two unanswerable objections 
to this theory which in any form would cast aspersion 
upon the honesty of the testimony of these men to the 
resurrection of the Lord. 


38 


The Resurrection Gospel 


(1) There was no inducement to dishonesty. Not 
a thing would be gained by telling this story. If it 
could be shown that they would have profited much 
in a financial way by the proclamation of such an un¬ 
expected and totally unwelcome doctrine as this one 
would be to men trained in the Jewish ways of think¬ 
ing, we might give some credence to the position. But 
there would be no gain financially. Instead of gain, 
it would be, as far as things of this world were con¬ 
cerned, all loss. The doctrine that a crucified Jew, 
one who had died like a common thief, was the long- 
desired and long-expected Messiah, the generator of 
all the hopes of Jewish patriots for years, the one at 
the mention of whose name every Jewish cheek would 
burn red with longing and every Jewish eye flash with 
joy—such a doctrine would evoke from all only the 
profoundest sensations of amazement and anger. Such 
a thing would have been regarded by them as an in¬ 
sult, an effrontery unbearable, an outrage on patriot¬ 
ism. If they had been desirous of finding the most 
unwelcome doctrine possible, they could not have been 
more successful than to preach this one which would 
sound the death-knell of all the patriotic hopes of a 
nation enslaved and ravaged and smarting under the 
dominion of the proud, cruel foreigner. What a 
terrible thing to preach! And is it reasonable to think 
that twelve men, knowing this, yea, even believing as 
did the rest of their people in the coming of a temporal 
king who should restore the kingdom to Israel in the 
glory and power of Solomon, would deliberately plan 
to tell a story which would make them cordially hated 
by all their own, and which would bring them nothing 
in emolument save stripes, isolation, prison and 


The Resurrection Gospel 


39 


death? The price was too big to pay for the mere fun 
of telling a lie. They could never be induced to give 
such testimony as this unless with all their hearts they 
believed it to be true, for it was in direct antagonism 
to all they themselves had thought, talked or believed 
about the coming kingdom of God. There had to be a 
mighty upheaval in their own souls, a wondrous revolu¬ 
tion in their own thinking, before they could so boldly 
stand before a crowd of enemies of the Lord, those 
who had nailed Him to the cross, and but six weeks 
later proclaim, not only with confidence, but with 
unction, that He had been raised from the dead 
through the glory and power of God. And here is the 
wonder of that first Pentecost. It was an amazing 
thing that those disciples who had been so confused 
and frightened, scattered in terror like chaff before 
the wind, could stand before the multitude and speak 
in foreign languages. But the far greater wonder is 
that they spoke at all; that these men, who, like Peter 
when he denied his Lord in the presence of a few 
menials, in terror were dumb, spoke forth with words 
of consuming fire, giving such powerful and con¬ 
vincing testimony to the exalted state of their glori¬ 
ously risen Lord that from among His very enemies 
who had crucified Him the church of Christ was bom. 

(2) A second objection to any form of the decep¬ 
tion theory is found in the incompatibility of such 
a deception with the lives these men lived. Such a 
thing as this could not have been done by the type of 
men such as these disciples. They gave to the world 
a new conception of morals, and so pure and fine were 
they in the consistent living of the principles which 
they preached that we can only conclude that if these 


40 


The Resurrection Gospel 


men were not honest, then honest men have never 
lived. They clung to their testimony through stripes 
and privation, through hatred and persecution, until 
death brought them glad release from it all, and never 
one of them recanted. With calm courage they faced 
death in the bitterest form which could be devised by 
the fiendish cruelty of their persecutors, and always 
with the same story on their lips: “We know that he 
hath been raised, because we have seen him after his 
resurrection.” Would good men die for a lie? Would 
any man do this? The whole theory is so ridiculous 
that it is now given up even in Germany. Strauss, 
in his “Leben Jesu,” sums up the whole matter when 
he says: “The theory is wholly incompatible with the 
after life, heroism and martyrdom of the apostles. 7 * 

(3) It should further be noted, in considering the 
testimony of the disciples to the resurrection, that fre¬ 
quently the whole matter is studied from the wrong 
angle. 

The mightiest witness to the resurrection of Jesus 
is not, and never has been, the Gospel narratives. 
Yet the majority have started with these and have 
become immersed in their details with all the problems 
which they raise, many of them intricate and some 
of them forever insoluble. These acknowledged diffi¬ 
culties in the stories of the resurrection as narrated 
by the Evangelists often become in their minds diffi¬ 
culties concerning the fact of the resurrection itself, 
while the truth of the matter is that they in no way 
at all affect the resurrection as a fact. This is the 
noble argument of the late Professor Denny in the 
somewhat extensive quotation which I can not refrain 
from giving here: “It ought to be apparent that, so 


The Resurrectimi Gospel 


41 


far as the fact of the resurrection of Jesus is con¬ 
cerned, the narratives of the Evangelists are quite the 
least important part of the evidence with which we 
have to deal. It is no exaggeration to say that if we 
do not accept the resurrection on grounds which lie 
outside this area, we shall not accept it on grounds 
presented here. The real historical evidence for the 
resurrection is the fact that it was believed, preached, 
propagated, and produced its fruit and effect in the 
new phenomenon of the Christian church, long before 
any of our Gospels was written. This is not said to 
disparage the Gospels, or to depreciate what they tell, 
but only to put the question on its true basis. Faith 
in the resurrection was not only prevalent, but im¬ 
mensely powerful, before any of our New Testament 
books was written. Not one of them would ever have 
been written but for that faith. It is not this or that 
in the New Testament—it is not the story of the empty 
tomb, or of the appearing of Jesus in Jerusalem or 
in Galilee—which is the primary evidence for the 
resurrection; it is the New Testament itself. The life 
that throbs in it from the beginning to end, the life 
that always fills us again with wonder as it beats upon 
us from its pages, is the life which the risen Savior 
has quickened in Christian souls. The evidence for the 
resurrection of Jesus is the existence of the church 
in that extraordinary spiritual vitality which con¬ 
fronts us in the New Testament. This is its own ex¬ 
planation of its being. 'He,’ says Peter, ‘hath poured 
forth this which ye both see and hear’ (Acts 2:33); 
and apart from all minuter investigations it is here 
the strength of the case for the resurrection rests. The 
existence of the Christian church, the existence of the 


42 


The Resurrection Gospel 


New Testament: these incomparable phenomena in 
human history are left without adequate or convinc¬ 
ing explanation if the resurrection of Jesus be 
denied. ’’ 1 

Well has Dr. Denny stated the fact when he says 
that to realize the priority of the faith in the resurrec¬ 
tion of the records of it in the Gospels is ‘Ho put the 
question on its proper basis. ’ ’ There is no possible way 
to understand the real meaning of the testimony if we 
persist in going at it from the wrong end. 

It must be frankly acknowledged at the start 
that no one has ever been able to construct a harmony 
which will explain without any inconsistencies all 
that is said about the resurrection in the Gospels, in 
Acts and in 1 Corinthians. There are difficulties, and 
it is extremely doubtful if any one will ever explain 
all of them. It should ever be remembered that it was 
a time of intense excitement; a time when emotions 
ran riot; a time when the disciples were filled with 
fear and amazement and then transported to the 
heights of delirious joy. The Gospel narratives reflect 
with great fidelity all these emotions. Since, however, 
they were not written until after the death of Paul, 
there was no chance to harmonize all the statements, 
even though that had been possible. Too much time 
had elapsed since the glorious event and the time of 
its recording by the Evangelists. Any one, however, 
who knows the meaning of evidence in its fundamental 
principles realizes that the acknowledged discrepancies 
in account do not vitiate the testimony to the central 
fact in any manner whatsoever. Had they all agreed 
in every minute detail, we must have concluded that 


1 “Jesus and the Gospel,” Denny, pp. 100, 101. 



The Resurrecti&n Gospel 


43 


all the testimony originated from one person or that 
it was a deliberately arranged testimony. And to the 
great fundamental fact that Jesus did arise, and that 
it was a bodily resurrection, though in a glorified body, 
the whole New Testament church bears witness with¬ 
out one dissenting voice. Had there been m some who, 
after an investigation of the facts, had denied the 
resurrection of the Lord altogether, and were still 
members of the New Testament church, we might have 
had to do then with discrepancies in testimony which 
would have had weight. But those who testify are 
of one mind as to what happened at the grave in the 
garden on that gladsome Easter morning, for they 
are the church and were made a church by that very 
event which had come to pass. When, therefore, an 
examination of the testimony of the Evangelists is to 
be made, let it constantly be borne in mind that it 
was a testimony which had been in existence, acting 
as a mighty moral power in the world, producing a 
company of believers from among the very ones who 
had been guilty of nailing the Lord to the tree, and 
indissolubly linked with the most vital things in the 
spiritual life of man, before the record of that testi¬ 
mony was reduced to writing in the form in which 
it appears to us in the Gospels. Thus it is the primary, 
universal testimony, and not only the record of it, 
which we are to consider and explain. 

3. The problem which must be solved if we deny 
the truth of the apostolic testimony. 

(1) Considering the previous state of mind which 
we have already discovered with not even the trace 
of any expectancy of the wonderful event, and the 
absence of any motive whatsoever for stealing the 


44 


The Resurrection Gospel 


body from the tomb or even desiring its removal, 
how can we account for the amazing change of mind 
on the part of the disciples which transformed them 
from broken-hearted, dispirited men to veritable lions 
of boldness, causing them to speak with such con¬ 
vincing power of the certainty of the resurrection and 
exaltation of their Lord that their very testimony 
brought into being the church of Christ, with all that 
it has meant to the world, and created the New 
Testament itself? 

(2) Or how can we account for the fact that Saul 
of Tarsus, the most unrelenting and inveterate ene¬ 
my of the church and its most feared and deter¬ 
mined persecutor, suddenly turns round, and with 
equal earnestness, even unto death, preaches the very 
faith he had before so rigorously persecuted? How 
can we account other than by accepting the testimony 
as true for the change in this man to whom the preach¬ 
ing of a crucified Messiah was the most absurd and 
abhorrent message which could possibly be delivered; 
a change so revolutionary that it caused him to declare 
this same doctrine with such power that churches based 
upon the gospel of the resurrection were established 
all over the eastern world ? Here are facts; they 
must be explained away or the testimony from which 
they sprang must be accepted as true and the faith 
which lives because of that testimony will stand forever 
vindicated. 

4. Let us then consider carefully some of the vi¬ 
sional theories and their inadequacy to explain away 
the appearances of Jesus to His disciples. 

(1) We have already attended to the attempts to 
explain away the significance of the empty grave. In 


The Resurrection Gospel 


45 


considering the visional theory, we are studying the 
only attempted explanation of the apostolic testimony 
which has an extensive currency to-day. The delusion 
theory has been discarded by all thinking men. The 
deception theory, as we have found, is so inadequate 
that it has met a like fate. Various forms of visional 
theories, therefore, are the only explanations which 
provoke any real interest in the minds of our day. 
In a word, all the visional theories explain the 
appearances of Jesus to the disciples as visions or sub¬ 
jective hallucinations which were the results of a mor¬ 
bid state of the nervous system. They were the 
outcomes of vivid imaginations. The disciples loved 
Jesus so much that they were constantly thinking of 
Ilim after His crucifixion. He was a hero, and heroes 
can never really die. They could not associate death 
with Him at all; hence, as they constantly thought of 
Him and of the absurdity of His life being in any way 
associated with death, they so worked on their imagi¬ 
nations that visions were the inevitable result. There 
was indeed no bodily resurrection, but Jesus did rise 
in the hearts of His disciples. Visions to-day are con¬ 
sidered real and almost tangible phenomena; they 
are readily accepted as scientific facts, and it is argued 
by those who embrace the visional hypothesis that, 
were it to be proven that there was no resurrection 
of the body of the Lord, the resurrection as a fact 
would not be destroyed because we would still have it 
as a psychic fact. This position would remove the 
necessity for a discussion of the empty grave, and 
would even, in the opinion of some, exalt the Lord 
Himself. Only a good and true man as was Jesus 
could thus come back again in glory in the hearts of 


46 


The Resurrection Gospel 


His disciples. It is this that Professor Harnack 
means when he talks about the Easter faith being in 
no way dependent for its perpetuity upon the Easter 
message. We can cling to the Easter faith that 
something happened at the grave in the garden which 
made us forever believe in the reality of the victory 
of life over death and the certainty of the existence 
of the spiritual world. But the Easter message need 
not necessarily be retained. Or perhaps better should 
we state it that the Easter faith can go on even though 
we are never able to know for a certainty the nature 
of the Easter message. When we consider the fact, 
however, that both Easter faith and Easter message 
are generally rejected together, we wonder if there is 
any force in the position of the great German pro¬ 
fessor. If this has been true in the past, what reason 
have we for supposing that they are independent 
now? Professor Denny states the problem regarding 
the appearances to the disciples as it presents itself to 
those minds whose view of reality in general constrains 
them to reduce all evidence, which in anyway seems 
to imply the miraculous, to a minimum. “There can 
be no doubt that appearances did appear to certain 
persons; the problem is, How are we to give such 
appearances their proper place and interpretation in 
the whole scheme of things? Is it not much more 
probable that they are to be explained from within, 
from the moods of thought and feeling in the souls 
which experienced them, than from anything so incon¬ 
ceivable, and so incommensurable with experience, as 
the intrusion of another world into this? Is it not 
more probable, in short, that they were what philoso¬ 
phers call ‘subjective’ states of the soul itself, and not 


The Resurrection Gospel 


47 


‘objective’ realities independent of the soul?” 1 Here 
the whole issue is stated. What did the disciples see? 
That the} 7 saw something all are now ready to admit. 
But what was it? Did they really see Him in objec¬ 
tive form as He was buried in the new tomb of 
Joseph, or did He so rise in their hearts that they 
only thought they saw Him? We are then ready to 
consider: 

(2) The obvious inadequacy of any visional hypoth¬ 
esis to explain the testimony of the disciples that they 
had seen the risen Lord. 

a . The visional theory fails to explain the empty 
tomb. Five or six years after the death of the Lord, 
Paul was converted to Christianity, and at that time 
the fundamental facts of the Christian tradition, as 
it had been taught him and as he then transmitted 
to others, are found in his first letter to the Corinthians. 
In this letter he defines what he knows as the gospel, 
and what was at that time the common tradition as 
believed by the universal church. ‘ * 1 Now I make 
known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached 
unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye 
stand, by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the 
word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in 
vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which 
also I received; that Christ died for our sins accord¬ 
ing to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and 
that he hath been raised on the third day according 
to the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:1-5). From this we 
learn that so close to the alleged events as the time of 
this letter there were five fundamentals taught and 
believed: that Christ died for sins, that He was buried, 


1 “Jesus and the Gospel,” Denny, p. 108. 



48 


The Resurrection Gospel 


that He had been raised the third day, that He re¬ 
mains in the exalted state, and that He appeared to 
certain persons. Not only were these facts taught, 
but they were the facts on which the church stood 
and by which its members were saved. Now, it is 
significant that the burial is mentioned here so promi¬ 
nently as to be one of the fundamental facts, for it 
defines what is meant by the rising from the dead. 
It is evident that there could have been no meaning 
in an Easter faith to Paul and to the Christian circle 
apart from the Easter message, for it would have been 
meaningless for them to have talked about the rising 
of the Christ in their hearts. When they thought of 
the risen Savior, it was always in relation to His 
burial—they thought always of the grave in the 
garden. If we can not speak of a bodily resurrec¬ 
tion, “we can not speak of a resurrection at all.” 
To fail to realize this universal testimony of the church 
regarding the burial, and that they always thought of 
the resurrection as related to the grave of Jesus, is to 
misunderstand what the whole early church believed 
and taught. For it is universally acknowledged by 
friends and enemies alike that on the third day the 
body was missing from the tomb. Professor Orr, 
speaking of this universal belief, says: “Here, then, 
are two facts in the history of the resurrection—the 
stone rolled away, and the empty tomb—attested about 
as well as facts can be, with the belief of the whole 
primitive church behind them. There is not a hint 
anyw T here that the fact of the empty tomb was ever 
questioned by either friend or foe. It would have 
heen easy to question or disprove it when the apostles 
were boldly proclaiming the resurrection in Jerusalem 


The Resurrection Gospel 


49 


a few weeks later. But no one appears to have 
done so.” 1 Now, manifestly an explanation of the 
appearances which reduce them to merely a subjective 
state of the soul, a pathological experience, is unthink¬ 
able in connection with the empty tomb. Nor did the 
apostles consider it merely an inference from the 
fact of the resurrection, but they ever thought of it 
as a vital part of their belief in the resurrection, as in 
fact underlying their faith in the great event. 

b. A second objection to the visional theory is that 
it is incompatible with all that we know of the char¬ 
acters of the early witnesses. If they had visions of 
the Christ, they ought not to have had them. It will 
ever be a great pity that they did have them. For 
such visions must be treated as pathological phenomena 
as founded in disease and disorder of the spirit and 
not belonging to men of sound mind, as were these 
who knew Jesus so well. If their brains had not been 
overheated, they never would have had such visions. 
But these men were not at all of the type that have 
such experiences. They were not neurotics, but men 
of solid souls, men of the ordinary walks of life, non- 
mystically minded men. They were not nervous, 
hysterical persons, “but men of stolid, practical judg¬ 
ment; fishermen; a tax-gatherer like St. Matthew; a 
matter-of-fact, unideal man like St. Philip; a skeptic 
like St. Thomas. In no case is there the slightest trace 
of preparatory excitement.” The usual calmness of 
these men and their sobriety impel us to the rejection 
of any theory which makes them the easy victims of 
phantasmal delusions. 


1 “The Resurrection of Jesus,” Orr, pp. 126, 127. 

4 



50 


The Resurrection Gospel 


c. A third objection is of a psychological nature. 
In order that visions should come to all the disciples at 
once, and so soon after the death of the Lord, it would 
be necessary that there be a previous expectancy of the 
event, and this we have found was not present. It was 
the very last thing they would expect. Since they did 
not expect Jesus to rise, it is absurd to think that five 
hundred brethren at once could have had a subjective 
vision of Him. One man might have had a vision, 
but such a large group would not likely be thus 
affected. 

d. Another objection to the visional theory is that 
it fails to explain the testimony of Paul. Paul wrote 
several years after the event, and he wrote of it with 
absolute confidence born of the most searching exami¬ 
nations into all the phenomena surrounding it, as an 
indisputable historical fact. The time for visions 
had long passed when he made his examination, and 
many of the brethren who had seen Jesus had died. 
Surely a man with the intellectual acumen of Paul 
could have easily detected the false in the testimony if 
there had been such. But after a most diligent exami¬ 
nation he came to believe with the utmost certitude 
that the resurrection of the Lord in all His glorified 
corporeality was a fact abundantly attested by sober, 
honest men and women. 

e. The visional theory further fails to account for 
the manner in which the disciples thought of Jesus 
after His resurrection. There can be no doubt but 
that people do have visions of dead loved ones. Have 
we not all had this experience? I have again and 
again seen my father or the younger brother who gave 
his life in the service of his country. They live in our 


The Resmi-ection Gospel 


51 


memories, and if we have forgotten them until some¬ 
thing happens once more to bring them to memory, 
we say that they live again in our memories; but when 
the visions return to us, they are of them as we knew 
them in this life. There is no change. The face of the 
old, familiar friend comes back to us. There is no 
hint of a revelation of a higher being or of a glori¬ 
fied state of the one departed. But this is not the 
way the Lord returned to the disciples. He did not 
come to them as the lowly Galilean peasant; the hum¬ 
ble, good man; the kindly teacher. He appeared unto 
them in the power and glory of His kingly state as Lord 
of hosts, as King of heaven and earth, exalted to the right 
hand of God with dominion and majesty. There is 
no doubt that when the loving followers of the Lord 
thought of Him they brooded upon His moral excellen¬ 
cies, they rejoiced in His compassion and love. Doubt¬ 
less their appreciation of His resurrection was morally 
conditioned by this attitude, but to say that it evoked 
within them a vision of Jesus in His final power and 
glory, is absurd in the extreme. It would have pre¬ 
pared them for the new and wonderful revelation, for 
such was the appearance of the Lord to them, a revela¬ 
tion of the final truth about Him, but it could not have 
produced it. In the splendid conclusion of Professor 
Denny: “It was no coming to life again in memory 
of the dear, familiar friend whom even death could 
not dislodge from the heart; it was something trans¬ 
cendency and unimaginably new, and it needs a cause 
proportioned to it to explain its presence.” 

/. One other unanswerable objection to the vision 
theory is that Jesus was seen on too many different 
occasions, by too many different persons, and by some 


52 


The Resurrection Gospel 


of these persons too many different times, for them to 
have been mistaken. The disciples could not have been 
mistaken on these occasions, for they had every oppor¬ 
tunity to identify Him as the one whom they had 
known. They ate with Him, handled Him, heard Him 
speak, and many times in long interviews. He showed 
them His wounds and allowed them to touch Him. 
He taught them many things which they had before 
misunderstood. He imparted to them His great com¬ 
mission upon which the whole future of the church 
rested. The vision theory falls down under such con¬ 
ditions as the walk to Emmaus, the conversation with 
Thomas, and the meal with the fishermen on the shore 
of Galilee. These were real occurrences without any 
of the well-recognized characteristics of vision. 

If Jesus had been seen by twelve men, and they 
were honest men, and their witness harmonized with all 
the other facts in the case, such as the empty tomb, the 
rolling away of the stone, the blessed fruits of the 
witness, we would be forced to accept their testimony. 
But Jesus was seen by twelve men for a space of forty 
days. He was seen by five hundred brethren at one 
time. He was seen by Paul. The list which Paul 
gives in 1 Corinthians may be chronological, but it is 
not necessarily complete. There are enough witnesses, 
however, to prove anything. The vision theory fails 
to take into consideration all of the facts in the case. 
This has always been the peculiarity of those theories 
which would reduce to a minimum, or explain away 
altogether, the miraculous element in the New Testa¬ 
ment. It fails to explain the number of the appear¬ 
ances and the far greater number of witnesses to 
whom they were vouchsafed. 


The Resurrection Gospel 


53 


g. One more objection to a form of the visional 
theory which has some vogue to-day and is known as 
the telegram theory. Jesus actually died and was 
buried, and His body remained in the tomb, but He 
afterward really appeared to His wondering disciples 
in the form of an apparition. In a word, He sends 
them a telegram from heaven saying that all is well. 
But the disciples claim that they saw and conversed 
with the risen Lord, not merely an apparition or 
ghost of Him. Then, too, the argument advanced with 
such telling force by the late Professor Bruce against 
this whole position which was advocated by Keim is 
that the disciples received exactly the opposite message 
from that which Jesus had sent them in telegram 
form from heaven. If He had sent them such a message, 
they would have said that while His body remained in 
the tomb they yet believed that all was well with Him 
in heaven; that in spirit He was with them to the end 
of the world. But exactly the opposite message is re¬ 
ceived, believed and preached with such power that it 
became the foundation of the church of Christ itself; 
the message that His body had been raised from the 
dead. Like all other visional theories, the facts in the 
case are ignored or twisted to suit the philosophy 
under the constraint of which the advocate labors. 

h. The sudden cessation of the visions is another 
telling objection which may be advanced against 
the visional hypothesis. For a period of six weeks 
there is a series of appearances of the glorified Lord 
to the wondering and joy-filled disciples. A period 
of great excitement follows each appearance, for they 
were to the disciples totally unexpected. Then suddenly 
they cease altogether. This surely would in no way 


54 


The Resurrection Gospel 


accord with the theory of visions resulting from ex¬ 
cited imaginations. Had they been visions, they 
would not have come to such a sudden and dramatic 
close succeeded by a calm period of meditation and 
an unshaken assurance that what they had seen was 
a real manifestation of the Lord in His glorified 
state. There would have been visions intermittently 
for many weeks, and probably years. Once again the 
theory fails in that it does not take into account all the 
facts in the case. And any theory to be credited 
must do this very thing. 

i. The vision theory is once more objectionable 
because it fails to account for the glorious results 
which followed the alleged resurrection. There must 
have been a cause adequate to the production of the 
undenied effects. Here are men who a little while 
before were so timid and frightened that they had 
fled in confusion and terror. They were broken¬ 
hearted at the awful death of their Master. Their 
high hopes had been rudely dashed upon the rocks, 
and their golden visions of a kingdom restored to 
Israel, rivaling the wondrous age of Solomon, had 
forever faded away. Amazed and dumb, knowing 
naught but sorrow for their beloved Lord whose body 
lay cold in the lonely tomb in the garden, plunged 
one day into the depths of despair, they are found 
the next transported to the very mountain-peaks of 
joy, and, with a boldness which confounded the 
people, proclaiming the marvelous fact that this One 
who had died had been raised from the dead. No 
vision theory can account for this sudden and astound¬ 
ing transformation. Visions of a morbid soul would 


The Resurrection Gospel 55 

have led to a corresponding depression rather than 
such exaltation. 

j. A final objection to an explanation of the testi¬ 
mony of the disciples on the ground that they saw 
but a vision of the Christ, whether it be objective 
or a mere subjective rising in the heart, is to be found 
in the fact that so fundamental a belief as the 
resurrection could not have had its basis upon vision 
or hallucination. 

We have already noted that the gospel was from 
the time of the alleged rising preached as the gospel 
of the resurrection. Everything in the preaching of 
the disciples depended upon it. Reconciliation to God, 
forgiveness of sins, the reality of the spiritual world, 
the hope of life everlasting, all are based, in the 
preaching of the early Christians, upon the fact that 
Jesus was raised from the dead after He had actually 
died and had been buried. This is the keystone of the 
mighty arch of faith, so much so, indeed, that Paul says 
that if Christ hath not been raised, then is the faith 
of the Christian insipid. 

We have studied this testimony of a risen Lord as 
a moral power in the world. That it has been such, 
no thinking man to-day will deny. Wherever the 
story of the cross is told and the Easter message 
preached, men have been raised to higher planes of 
living and thinking, light has succeeded darkness. 
Could all this have been based upon a mere subjec¬ 
tive state of a few deluded disciples of the long ago? 
Keim has it right when, in his <( Geschicte von Jesu 
Nazar a," he says “this would have been incompatible 
with the calm clearness and conviction and the strong 
purpose of action which were its outcome.*’ Professor 


56 


The Resurrection Gospel 


Orr ably sums up the objections to the vision theory: 
“Psychologically no good cause has ever been shown 
why the disciples should have this marvelous outburst 
of visionary experience; should have it so early as the 
third day; should have it simultaneously; should have 
it within a strictly limited period, after which the 
visions as suddenly ceased; should never afterwards 
waver or doubt about it; should be inspired by it for 
the noblest work ever done on earth. If anything is 
certain historically, it is that the death of their Master 
plunged the disciples into deepest despondency; that 
their hearts, always ‘slow to believe/ were sad, and 
their hopes broken, and that, so far from expecting a 
resurrection, they could hardly be persuaded of the 
fact even after it occurred. Even the words which Jesus 
had spoken on the subject had not been apprehended 
in a sense which helped them to believe. The women 
who had visited the tomb had assuredly no expecta¬ 
tion of finding the Lord risen. Even if their fatih 
had been stronger than it was, that would not have 
caused the appearances. ’’ 1 

Conclusion. 

And now we have come to the end of our argu¬ 
ment. If the enemies of the Lord did not steal the 
body from the tomb; if the disciples were satisfied 
that it remained there, and none of them were guilty 
of taking it; if Jesus did actually appear to them 
after the third day—there is but one conclusion: that 
their witness is true, and that Jesus, by the power of 
the Father, was raised in glory and exaltation, never 
more to see death, but to reign as King of kings and 


1 “The Resurrection of Jesus,” Orr, p. 225. 



The Resurrection Gospel 


57 


Lord of lords. Such has ever been the stedfast faith 
of the church which He founded according to His 
own plan upon this very gospel of the resurrection. 
Almost two thousand years have passed since the 
gladsome day when the sun rose in the gray dawn 
of that Easter morning to discover the stone rolled 
away from the door. Truly that was a morning 
which shook the world to its very foundations. And 
with each passing year, as Easter succeeds Easter, 
higher and higher in the hearts of a weary and sin¬ 
ful world rises the flame of hope inspired by the 
glorious event which took place in that little garden. 
Never before have men turned so universally to the 
church as they turn to-day when the Easter bells ring 
out their joyous message. For it is hope which they 
most desire, it is inspiration which they want. And 
all that hope means, leaving nothing out of it, is to 
be found in the return to life of Him who was dead, 
but liveth forever more. Only in the light of the 
resurrection gospel can we understand those words 
which have lifted weeping eyes toward heaven’s bright¬ 
ness, which have filled the saddened heart with com¬ 
fort and hope: “I am the resurrection, and the life: 
he that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall lie 
live; and whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall 
never die” (John 11:25). Ah! it is life which we 
want, life which we need. We do not want to die; 
to feel that this little time, so initial in everything, 
so elemental, is all there is to be. 

11 ’Tis life, whereof our nerves are scant, 

Oh life, not death, for which we pant; 

More life, and fuller, that we want. ” 


.58 


The Resurrection Gospel 


And in Him whom death could not hold is life. 
To know Him aright is life eternal. It is the affirma¬ 
tion of countless millions who through this gospel of 
a risen Lord have found peace in reconciliation to 
God and to man. In one mighty diapason of praise 
rises from the hearts of the redeemed the song: 

“Shout aloud, then, my soul. 

Let the glad tidings roll 
Even unto the isles of the sea. 

Christ has conquered the grave; 

He is risen to save, 

And the whole world through Him is made free. ” 


II. 

HELL 


Text. —Law is a rule of action. In the fourth or vindicatory 
part of law consists the main strength or force. Where there is 
no law there can be no wrong or violation; where there is no 
penalty the law is null and void. The principles of right and 
justice are fixed and law is merely an expression and definition 
of these rules and the naming of the penalty for their violation. 
— Blackstone. 

T HE age in which we live is characterized by an 
effort oil the part of many to ignore the great 
eschatological teachings of the Word. With some, 
this spirit has become so marked that they deny even 
the very existence of heaven and hell. Those who 
by nature look upon the beautiful things of life, those 
whose lives are environed by luxuries or by the pro¬ 
tecting care of loved ones, will, as a rule, consider the 
subject of hell with a certain degree of abhorrence. 
But if such a place or condition exists, whatever the 
term used in designating it may be, it certainly be¬ 
hooves us as intelligent men and women to face the 
facts just as they are and give them in our preaching 
and in our thinking that emphasis which is by right 
their due. 

Now, if hell does exist, let us console ourselves 
here in the beginning of this sermon with the knowl¬ 
edge that there is no necessity for any man or woman, 
to whom has been granted even the most ordinary 

59 


60 


The Resurrection Gospel 


degree of intelligence, going to that place. God in 
His unfathomable love and mercy has prepared the 
way of escape. In His Son Jesus Christ and because 
He has so loved the world, He has granted full and 
free pardon for all who will receive it, and that par¬ 
don is the only sure hope of man avoiding hell. 
Every sinner who goes to hell walks over the body 
of Jesus Christ, tramples “the blood of the covenant’’ 
under his feet and passes unconcerned by the cross 
which, as a flaming beacon, stands squarely in the 
way of every perdition-bent individual. If you go 
to hell, my sinner friend, don’t blame God or His Son. 
Everything that divine love and human suffering 
could do for you has been done, and if you are lost 
you can blame yourself, and yourself alone. Not only 
has God fortified hell against you by placing the cross 
of Christ in your way, but He has made the conditions 
upon which you may obtain His pardon so plain and 
so easy that there is left to you no excuse for refus¬ 
ing to accept them. Thus not only would a man’s 
going to hell be against all love and mercy, but it 
would be against all reason, for the way of salva¬ 
tion is so plain and easy that “the wayfarer, even 
though a simpleton, cannot err therein.” 

ARGUMENT. 

I. The Existence of Hell. 

Man has universally been conscious of sin. The 
black monster has coiled his foul length around every 
heart. The three thousand of Pentecost cried out in 
agony of soul: “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 
The Philippian jailor, trembling with fear, prostrated 


Hell 


61 


himself before Paul and Silas and asked: “What must 
I do to be saved ?” Paul, in the throes of the world- 
old battle against the, by human strength alone, un¬ 
conquerable adversary, exclaims, as its horrible stench 
fills his nostrils: “Oh, who shall deliver me from the 
body of this death?” Sin is here, around us, among 
us, and in us. Some there are who would make effemi¬ 
nate the meaning of sin by calling it merely a disease, 
thus doing away with any responsibility of man to God 
for his transgressions. With such, no longer is the 
one who purloins your property a thief, but a klepto¬ 
maniac, who, by a surgical operation, may be healed. 
No more is the one who becomes a besotted beast 
through the long use of intoxicants, a drunkard and 
one “who shall not inherit the kingdom of God”; but 
with them he is now an invalid who may be cured by 
cutting out his desire for drink. But the Word knows 
not sin in this new dress. Sin is sin and “the soul 
that sinneth it shall die.” Neither has the universal 
human consciousness accepted this weak view, but it 
has decreed, after centuries of experience, that sin is 
transgression of law, and as such is hateful to God, 
and soul-damning to man. 

There is no use for any one to try to deny the ex¬ 
istence of sin. It is here in all its myriad polluting 
forms. The marble shaft of the cemetery as it points 
toward the sky is a mute witness to the existence of 
sin. The pages of history, written with the blood of 
a thousand nations no longer existent in the mem¬ 
ory of man, testify that sin is here. The roar of the 
cannon, the whiz of the bullet, the horrible crash of 
shell, the shrieks of the wounded and dying, are only 
the expressions of sin in man. Why, if we intro- 


62 


The Resurrection Gospel 


spect our own hearts, we will find the blights and 
scars of the monster there! The greatest and most 
easily recognizable fact of our life, here and now, is 
the fact of sin. Labor and capital, army and navy, 
tenderloin districts, slums, child labor, penitentiaries, 
electric chairs, saloons, jails and mad-houses, what 
are these, and a hundred other kindred terms, but 
the names of problems, conditions and institutions 
made possible only by sin? 

But the consciousness of sin presupposes some¬ 
thing antecedent to sin; namely, law. ‘ ‘ Where there is 
no law there can be no wrong or violation. ’ 1 The state¬ 
ment of Blackstone in our text might be conversely 
stated and still be equally true. “Where there is no 
wrong or violation there can be no law,” for the very 
existence of sin presupposes the existence of law. 
John defines sin as the transgression, or the stepping 
over, of the law; thus if there is no law to step over, 
there is no sin. For instance, if there be in the uni¬ 
verse of God no law against murder, lying, stealing or 
committing adultery, it is no sin to murder, lie, steal 
or to commit adultery. The existence of sin always 
means that there is a law which has been sinned 
against. Therefore, co-existent with the fact of sin, 
the fact of law must be recognized. 

For the purposes of this discussion, let us divide 
law roughly into two divisions: (1) Civil law, or that 
of the nation, State or municipality, and (2) moral 
law, or that which, even though it may be embodied 
in the civil law, is nevertheless differentiated from it 
by its subject-matter. To these divisions, for purposes 
of illustration, might be added a third, the limits of 
which are not always easily defined; namely, natural 


Hell 


63 


law or that by which God governs and controls the 
universe. The spheres of these divisions encroach 
upon one another to such an extent that they may 
appear to be somewhat arbitrary, but for the purposes 
for which they are here employed they will be found 
adequate. 

Thus far we have taken two steps in our argu¬ 
ment: (1) The existence of sin was established and 
(2) coexistent with sin the fact of law was acknowl¬ 
edged. Inseparably connected with these two ideas is 
a third, and one which must ever be thought of when 
either of the others comes to mind. This next idea or 
step is the fact of penalty. Our text reminds us 
“that where there is no penalty the law is null and 
void.” For illustration, if there is no penalty 
attached to the law forbidding murder, then that law, 
by virtue of the very fact that no man is ever punished 
for breaking it, becomes “null and void,” or worth¬ 
less. If the State has a law against stealing, yet when 
a man steals, it says to him, “Go thy way in peace; 
we will do nothing to thee,” that law becomes “null 
and void,” or, in short, ceases to exist. A law with¬ 
out penalty attached for its violation is inconceivable, 
for the absence of penalty will kill the law, or cause 
it simply to become non-existent. 

Now, if we examine some of the so-called “laws 
of nature,” we find our statement on the inseparability 
of law and penalty strikingly confirmed. God’s natural 
laws always have penalty attached for their viola¬ 
tion, they always reward the obedient, and sternly 
and unsparingly punish the transgressor. For illus¬ 
tration, let us suppose that a man jumps from the 
roof of a ten-story building. He will not fly off into 


64 


The Resurrection Gospel 


the air, as do the birds, but will be dashed to death 
upon the pavement below, a victim of the penalty 
attached to the law of gravitation. If it were not for 
this penalty, the law of gravity would be non-existent. 
It is the very fact that a man is killed when he dis¬ 
obeys it that makes it a law to him. It makes no 
difference what a man may think about it, whether 
he may like it or not, the law is absolutely impartial 
in its working. Man may obey or transgress, just as 
he desires. If he obeys, he will be rewarded; if he 
transgresses, he will incur the inevitable punishment. 

The law of native element also illustrates the harsh 
but indisputable fact of penalty. Suppose a man, tir¬ 
ing of the humdrum life of this workaday world, 
decides to become an amphibian. But let him try 
as he may, he can not become a fish. Water is not 
his native element, and he discovers, if he attempts a 
life therein, that he will meet a fool’s death, for death 
is the penalty attached for the violation of the law of 
native element. 

In our partition of law into its three large divi¬ 
sions, we mentioned one as moral law, which, even 
though it might be included within the body of the 
civil law, was nevertheless differentiated from it by 
the subjects with which it deals and the circumstances 
of its origin. This law began with God. Some legisla¬ 
tive body may have said, “Thou shalt not kill,” or 
4 ‘ Thou shalt not steal, ’ ’ but that did not make it wrong 
to kill or steal. These things were wrong long before 
legislatures or parliaments, courts or systems of gov¬ 
ernment were in existence. Man has always felt that 
the doing of these things is sin. Consciousness of 
these great moral laws as not emanating from himself, 


Hell 


65 


but as God-wrought and God-given, has ever been one 
of the most precious heritages of the race. Precious 
indeed, for only in their uncompromising light can 
man correctly regulate his conduct toward his fel¬ 
lows; yea, he would not even know how to deport 
himself at all were it not for their projection into his 
consciousness, and that by some external power. We 
might even go further than the affirmation of the 
existence of this consciousness and say that all of our 
conceptions of the finer things in life—of honesty, vir¬ 
tue, marriage, fraternity—are founded firmly upon 
our conception of these very moral laws of God. 
Upon our attitude toward these finer things is based 
our civil law, regulating marriage, protecting virtue 
and defining man’s duties toward man. Thus in 
reality our civil law itself centers around, or is based 
upon, the clearness with which we comprehend the 
great moral law. Long before the law had been 
forged into commands amid the mutterings of Sinai, 
even in that time when the first family inhabited 
the vales of Eden, this consciousness of right and 
wrong was present. When Cain, in that hellish fit of 
jealousy, with foul hands had slain his trusting 
brother, in horror at his deed, as the realization that 
it was sin in God’s sight came over him, he brazenly 
inquires: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” To deny 
the presence of these laws in the world would be to 
destroy the foundations of our institutions; it would 
be to divorce man from those splendid qualities which 
so clearly lift him above and beyond the realm of the 
brute. 

In our discussion thus far, we have noted that 
disobedience to civil law always brings its reward in 

5 


66 


The Resurrection Gospel 


the form of penalty, but if there be no penalty at¬ 
tached the law is always null and void. Also in the 
case of God’s natural law, we found that law apart 
from penalty was an idea, inconceivable. Now, if it 
be true in every case that can be found, that ‘‘ where 
there is no penalty the law is null and void,” then 
these great moral and spiritual laws, formulated and 
commanded by the Father, must, if they retain their 
character as laws, have penalties attached for their 
violation, or they are null and void. If they have no 
penalty, then it is no sin to murder; neither is it 
morally wrong to lie, steal, or commit adultery. It is 
not a sin to cheat or maltreat one’s neighbor, for if 
there be no penalty, then there is no law; it has be¬ 
come null and void. If there is no law, then there 
can be no wrong, for “where there is no law there 
can be no wrong or violation.” That penalty attached 
to the moral and spiritual laws of God; that retribu¬ 
tion which comes as the inevitable reward of sin; that 
pay-day, to which every transgressor must come—that 
is hell. 

Therefore, as a conclusion of the point concerning 
the existence of hell, three powerful and utterly in¬ 
disputable facts must be readily recognized by even 
the most indolent intellect: (1) If there is no hell or 
penalty, then there is no law, for “law without penalty 
is null and void.” (2) If there is no law, then there is no 
sin, for “where there is no law, there can be no wrong, 
or violation.” (3) If there is no sin, then there is no 
moral or spiritual responsibility; there is no need for 
moral or spiritual reformation, and our manifold insti¬ 
tutions which exist for the avowed end of making men 
better—our churches, our schools, our Y. M. and Y. 


Hell 


67 


W. C. A.’s, our asylums, our missions, our W. C. T. 
U.’s—these, and a hundred others, kindred in char¬ 
acter and purpose, have become utterly foolish and 
worse than useless. 

In a sentence, then, to deny the existence of hell 
is to deny both the existence of sin and of law. 

“But,” says one, “even though I accept the facts 
as you have produced them, I can not see how God 
can be just and condemn a man to hell.” The trouble 
with many people is that they do not comprehend the 
meaning of the term “justice.” An illustration will 
make it clear. Suppose a law in this State against 
horse-stealing, with a maximum penalty of two years 
in State’s prison for the first offense. A man thor¬ 
oughly acquainted with the law, and knowing well 
the penalty, having carefully planned the theft, de¬ 
liberately steals a dozen horses. He is captured, 
brought to trial and convicted of the crime. Now, 
justice demands that he be imprisoned for two years 
in the penitentiary. He knew the law; he knew of 
the certainty of the punishment if he were captured. 
To suffer the penalty attached to the law prohibiting 
horse-stealing, which he has deliberately violated, 
would be plain, simple justice. Is it in any way un¬ 
just that he should suffer the two years in prison? 
Who is responsible for the punishment which is in¬ 
flicted upon him, the law or the lawbreaker? You 
answer, “The lawbreaker.” Then, if he is responsible, 
he is also accountable, and simple justice demands that 
he suffer the penalty. To receive justice is simply for 
a man to get what is rightfully coming to him. 

But, now let us suppose that the Governor of the 
State comes to the man and says to him: “Because of 


68 The Resurrection Gospel 

the helpless condition of your good, old Christian 
mother, and because you, as a son, owe her your sup¬ 
port, I am going to give you a pardon. Take it, and 
you are free.” The pardon in this case would not 
represent the justice of the State, but the mercy. Let 
us suppose, however, that the man under penalty, or 
justice, calmly folds his arms, and after looking at 
the Governor for a moment says: “I don’t want your 
pardon, and I won’t have it.” Such an astonishing 
and uncalled-for action as this would simply mean 
that he has spurned the mercy of the State as vested 
in, and offered by, its chief executive. Its mercy 
having been rejected, what could the State do? There 
would positively be nothing that it could do, for it 
could not be merciful to the one who refused to be a 
recipient of its mercy. There would be nothing left 
to the lawbreaker save to suffer the penalty of his 
crime. The State did all it could for him in offering 
him mercy when he deserved justice. 

In the word of God, and by our own consciences, 
we are taught that we are sinners before God; that 
for our innumerable transgressions we have fallen 
under the penalty of God’s laws. There is universal 
recognition of this terrible fact, for all have sinned 
and have fallen short of the glory of God. But, and 
oh, how glorious is the thought, “God so loved the 
world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that who¬ 
soever believeth on him should not perish, but have 
eternal life.” The Father found us lost, condemned 
and in ruins. We were without light, without hope. 
Penalty hovered loweringly over us. Had we suf¬ 
fered that penalty it would have been just, for it 
would have been well deserved. But the Father, 


Hell 


69 


because He so loved us, granted unto us His mercy, 
His pardon, in His Son Jesus Christ. The sweat and 
blood of Calvary represent the penalty being suffered 
for us that we might receive the pardon. It was not 
because it was just that Jesus died, but because of 
love, that we might have mercy. Now, suppose a sin¬ 
ner, one under penalty, calmly rejects the pardon of 
the Father, saying: “I will have nothing to do with 
the Christ.’’ He thereby spurns the mercy of God. 
Then, how can the Father be merciful to the one 
who will not accept His mercy? If a man will not 
take the pardon, there is nothing left but for him to 
suffer justice. God can not be merciful, but can 
only be just, to the one who refuses His mercy. The 
writer of the Hebrew letter recognizes this when he 
says: “A man that hath set at naught Moses’ law dieth 
without compassion [mercy] on the word of two or 
three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, think 
ye, shall he be judged worthy who hath trodden un¬ 
der foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood 
of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an un¬ 
holy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit of 
grace?” (Heb. 10:28, 29.) The old law represented 
strict justice; the new law, justice tempered with 
mercy. Heaven has done all for man that could be 
done, even to the offering of a pardon when man in 
his guilty state was deserving of nothing but justice. 
To reject that pardon is nothing more nor less than 
spiritual suicide. 

II. The Proof that Hell Is Future. 

We are not only interested in the question as to 
whether or not hell exists, but after demonstrating 


70 


The Resurrection Gospel 


this to our satisfaction we want to know when it will 
be, or the time of its existence. Is hell to be here 
or hereafter? this is the question. Now, if we can dis¬ 
pose of all theories, which in any way claim that hell 
is here and now, we shall have established our point 
that it is future by eliminating all other possibilities. 
Thus a careful survey and searching analysis of three 
theories are indispensable before any direct argu¬ 
ments can be adduced for the futurity of hell. 

1. The first theory maintains that the pangs of 
a guilty conscience constitute all the hell there is. 
Says one: “When I do right my conscience is clear, 
and in that I possess such a conscience I am re¬ 
warded for my goodness. When I do wrong my 
conscience hurts me, and I am punished with remorse 
and sorrow because of my wrong-doing. Thus my 
conscience becomes a hell to me when I sin.” 

It is a well-known fact that the more often one does 
a thing the easier it becomes to do that thing. The first 
efforts are always accompanied with more or less diffi¬ 
culty. The first movements of the pupil trying to 
learn to play the piano are usually awkward and 
labored. Consciousness interposes itself every time a 
finger touches a key and says, “Do this” or “Do 
that.” As time goes on, however, through constant 
and faithful practice, useless movements are inhibited, 
consciousness ceases to direct as to details, and the 
keys seem almost to play themselves. Analogous to 
this familiar illustration is the play of conscience in 
the moral life of the individual. When a sin is first 
committed difficulty invariably attends. Conscience 
intrudes and whispers, ‘ ‘ Don’t do this or that,’ ’ but 
as the sin is frequently and regularly committed 


Hell 


71 


these whisperings grow fainter and fainter, until con¬ 
science is inhibited and the sin, attended at first with 
such difficulty of soul, finally becomes habitual. To 
state it briefly, the more a man sins the less conscience 
he has about sin. This being true, then the worse a 
man is the less hell he gets, if one accepts the theory 
that conscience is all the hell there is. 

Now, there are some people whose consciences, 
through constant training, have become so acute that 
even a trivial sin will cause them to experience the most 
severe anguish of soul. To the first man the blackest sin 
in the whole category will not bring one pang because 
his conscience has become seared as with a hot iron; 
while in the case of the second the slightest wrong¬ 
doing will cause multifold miseries. Therefore, accord¬ 
ing to the conscience-hell theory, the more spiritual, 
moral and righteous a man becomes, the more hell he 
gets, and the more debased and depraved he becomes, 
the less hell he gets. 

It should also be noted that if conscience is a 
man’s hell it must also be his heaven, for heaven and 
hell both stand on the same authority in the Bible and 
in the light of reason. As a rule, however, those 
who believe in this theory do not make it apply to 
heaven. The theory is thus one-sided. 

2. A second theory claims that we get all our 
hell here upon this earth. Every time we sin we will 
be punished for it here. As far as the Scriptures are 
concerned, if this idea be correct, then we will get 
our heaven here also. But one thing is, as a rule, 
noticeable, and it is the fact that those who believe 
that all the hell the sinner gets he gets here, usually 
firmly believe that heaven is hereafter. As we have 


72 


The Resurrection Gospel 


before remarked, heaven and hell stand upon the 
same authority, both in the Scriptures and in the light 
of reason; so if we get one here we will get the other 
here, also. 

As we study the multiform conditions of life we 
are constantly struck by the fact that absolute justice 
here is unknown; also that in this life it is practically 
impossible. The innocent are so many times pun¬ 
ished while the guilty go free; the wicked and dis¬ 
solute enjoy the good things of life while the right¬ 
eous are persecuted and receive the hard end of all 
things. Nero on the throne; the Christian a prey to 
the half-starved beasts of the arena; labor crushed by 
capital; courts bribed by tainted money—these are 
but grains of sand on the seashore of illustrations of 
the absence of absolute justice. But if there be a 
counterfeit justice, there must somewhere be the true 
justice, for there can not be the shadow without there 
be that from which the shadow takes its form; there 
can not be the counterfeit without the genuine, after 
the pattern of which it is counterfeited. If there be 
no absolute justice here, then it must be after here 
or hereafter. Thus hell must be hereafter also, for 
only where absolute justice is dispensed can there be 
just rewards and punishments. 

Another thing noticeable about our existence is 
that our lives interact upon one another. Paul ex¬ 
pressed the idea when he said that no man lives or 
dies unto himself. If a man dies in our vicinity, we 
are influenced to some extent by the death, the in¬ 
tensity of the influence depending, of course, upon 
the nearness or remoteness of the influencing action. 
If it happens a thousand miles from us, we read the 


Hell 


7B 


account in the newspaper, and an involuntary shud¬ 
der passes over us; if it happens in the home across 
the street, our interest is more intense, but if it takes 
place in our own home, it breaks our hearts. The 
actions of the guilty punish the innocent; yea, the 
very existence of the sinner and his sin must of 
necessity be a punishment to the righteous. Murders, 
thefts, etc., occur, yet it is the man innocent of crime 
who by the sweat of his face must build the peni¬ 
tentiaries, erect the gallows, establish and maintain 
the madhouse and the home for the feeble-minded, or 
the habitation for the aged and infirm. Sin punishes 
the innocent as well as the guilty. 

An illustration: A good Christian mother possesses 
a son who, in his young manhood, because of morally 
unhealthy associates, becomes corrupt in his personal 
life; his habits become bad and he seems to care not at 
all for things of a religious nature. The mother, who 
has slaved that he might have a chance in the world, 
and who now, in her old age, is deserving of all the 
heaven that life has in store, is punished by every sin¬ 
ful action of her ungrateful son. Shame and sorrow 
are heaped upon her by the one who should be her 
support and stay. Whether his actions be intended 
to hurt or not, the punishment which they inflict is 
none the less terrible to bear. Ah, if the story of lives 
could be written, how many times over would this 
illustration be repeated? According, then, to the idea 
that we get our hell here on earth, the good Christian 
mother who, because of her pure life, deserves heaven, 
is the recipient of hell because of the thoughtless 
follies of her wicked son. 


74 


The Resurrection Gospel 


The theory is manifestly an impossible one because 
our lives are too closely interwoven for one to be suffer¬ 
ing the horrors of hell while his brother, with whom 
he dwells, is enjoying the delights of heaven, without 
there being an interaction of one life upon the other. 
Or, in a word, heaven, to be heaven, and hell, to be 
hell, must be separated, and separated so far that 
there can be no influence of one upon the other. Or, 
to state it again, heaven to be reward, and hell to be 
justice, must not be in the same place; for the punish¬ 
ment of the guilty would likewise become a punish¬ 
ment to the innocent. Even the very existence of the 
guilty in the same place with the righteous would 
be a punishment to the latter. 

Concluding, then, if hell is not the pangs of a 
guilty conscience; if it can not, in order to retain its 
very character as hell, be here—then it must be after 
here, or hereafter, sometime in the future. 

But we can determine the time of its existence 
even more accurately than to say that it is in the 
future. Hell can not be until this life is over and 
time shall be no more, and until there shall be a great 
and final judgment. It would be impossible to judge 
a man fairly at his death. True, the immediate acts 
of his life might be judged; but what about his in¬ 
fluence? A man does not die at death. His body may 
lie moldering in the tomb, but his influence goes 
marching on. Is Ingersoll dead? No, his influence 
still blights and ruins. Does Jonathan Edwards still 
live? Yes, his splendid influence goes triumphantly 
on, blessing and uplifting. The after-death influence 
of these men accomplishes more for good or ill than 
the immediate result of their few years upon the 


Hell 


75 


earth. Truly an impossible task is it to judge ade¬ 
quately the lives of these men and of all others until 
influence itself shall cease, and that can only be when 
time shall have been ended by the Father’s hand. 
Thus the final judgment must be at the end of time. 

Hell can not, in the nature of things, be awarded 
to those meriting it until after judgment, and if 
judgment be after time has ceased, then hell must also 
be after time has become no more. Therefore hell 
is in the future, after all time and after the last 
great judgment. 

III. The Character of Hell. 

The next question which naturally arises in the 
progress of the discussion is one as to the nature or 
character of hell. What kind of a place is it going 
to be? Not many decades ago the common idea of 
the character of hell was the one very clearly ex¬ 
pressed in the old phrase much used by spellbinding 
evangelists, as in the fervor of religious excitement 
they would describe the unrepentant as “hair-hung 
and breeze-shaken over the flaming pit.” Visions of 
an immense sea of fire and brimstone from which day 
and night ascended the smoke of the eternally tor¬ 
mented were painted in words of terribly descriptive 
power, while terrified audiences sat trembling, with 
open eyes and mouths. 

But, if one will think for a moment, this concep¬ 
tion taxes the credulity of even the most credulous. 
Fire and brimstone can have terror but for the ma¬ 
terial body alone. Paul tells us that “flesh and blood 
cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 15:50), 
but that the body will be a new body and spiritual. 


76 


The Resurrection Gospel 


Fire and brimstone can have no terrors for the 
spiritual form of man when he enters the beyond. 

But how can the numerous Scriptural descriptions 
of hell be explained, for assuredly they abound in 
references to fire and brimstone? True, but one law 
which can invariably be found to explain these Bibli¬ 
cal descriptions is that wherever Jesus, His apostles, 
or any of the inspired writers describe hell, the terms 
employed are always figurative. This law may be 
illustrated by an explanation of the sense in which 
the words Gehenna (Greek) or Hinnom (Hebrew) 
were used. 

The valley of Hinnom, or Gehenna, bounds Jeru¬ 
salem on the south below Mount Zion, and is the 
place which is so often mentioned as the setting of 
the awful idolatrous rites practiced by the apostate 
kings before the great idol Moloch. When King 
Josiah at last succeeded in overthrowing this idolatry, 
he defiled the valley by casting into it the bones of 
the dead, the greatest of all pollutions among the 
Jews. From this time on all the refuse of Jerusalem 
was cast into it and the combustible parts of it de¬ 
stroyed by fire which was kept forever burning. In 
the time of Christ, the festering bodies of criminals, 
dispatched according to the barbarous fashions of 
execution then prevalent, were cast into this terrible 
valley, and the smoke of the ever-burning fires carried 
their horrid stench, mingled with that arising from 
the rotting bodies of dead swine, which were to the 
Jew the most detested of all animals, to all the val¬ 
ley’s immediate environs. It is not to be wondered 
at, then, that to the Jew this place was the most 
horrible upon the earth. The very mention of the 


Hell 


77 


name “Gehenna” would provoke within him the most 
profound sensations of horror and disgust. Thus it 
is that Jesus, in the attempt to make clear to those 
unlettered fishermen, who had so often demonstrated 
their inability to receive a spiritual lesson, the ab¬ 
horrent character of hell, uses the familiar and de¬ 
tested term “Gehenna” as descriptive of that place 
“which eternal justice hath prepared for those rebel¬ 
lious.” Hell was not to be the valley of Gehenna, but 
in that it was to be a place of horror and gloom—it 
was to be like Gehenna. Hence the terms employed 
are figurative, simply attempts to portray to mortal 
man the terrors of spiritual punishment. 

The very terms used in the descriptions of hell 
show that they are figurative, but attempts to explain 
the real character of that awful condition. Unless they 
are figurative, they are mutually exclusive. Hell is 
called “outer darkness” and at the same time a “lake 
of fire.” It is a “bottomless pit” and a “flaming 
furnace.” These terms are only attempts to make 
the disciples understand the awful meaning of separa¬ 
tion from God. It could not be all of these at the 
same time. 

But if hell is not a burning pit, a lake of fire and 
brimstone, what kind of a place is it anyway? Is it 
a beautiful place, or the abode of perpetual gloom? 

When one thinks of heaven, whether that one be¬ 
lieves in hell or not, he tries to imagine a place beau¬ 
tiful beyond the power of human genius, inexperi¬ 
enced in its celestial delights, to paint in feeble words. 
The word ‘ ‘ heaven ” is to man the symbol of the highest 
conception which has ever been his of truth, beauty 
and eternal soul-delight. By the law of opposites, 


78 


The Resurrection Gospel 


which tells us ‘ ‘ that if there exists the good, there must 
also be the bad; if there be white, there must be its 
opposite, black/’ man has always been made to believe 
that hell, the exact opposite in character of heaven, 
and as far removed as “from the center thrice 
to utmost pole,” must then be by nature the most 
doleful and horrible place in the universe of God. 
And such we are convinced, both by reason and 
Scripture, it must be. 

Because hell does not consist of a lake of fire and 
brimstone, let no one deceive himself considering 
it a place of pleasure or a sort of summer resort. 
The terrors of hell are not at all minimized by the 
destruction of the ancient and utterly false conception 
by which, on pain of excruciating physical suffering, 
men were frightened into repentance, but rather do 
they become a thousand times more terrible when 
the true character of hell is revealed. 

In proving the futurity of hell, the fact was estab¬ 
lished that hell to be hell, and reward to be reward, 
the two conditions must be separated so far that 
there could be no influence of one upon the other, 
for a reciprocal influence would destroy the char¬ 
acter of both. Now, all acknowledge it to be Scrip¬ 
tural teaching that heaven is the abiding-place of 
God; all the beauties and glories of that wonderful 
home are emanations from His loving presence. If, 
then, heaven and hell are so far separated that inter¬ 
influence is impossible, then hell will be in character 
whatever it must mean to be separated from God. 
A very slight idea of what this would be is given to 
us as we behold the lives of those about us here and 
now who are separated from Him. The drunkard. 


Hell 


79 


with his bleared eyes, his seamed and furrowed face, 
his look of hopeless despair, as he realizes how utter 
is his servitude to rum—is he not an awful picture of 
the barrenness and bleakness of a life separated from 
God? Or look into the cold, hard eyes of the prosti¬ 
tute; see the artificial red on lip and cheek; behold 
the complete absence of that which lends to woman¬ 
hood its most gracious charm, a gentle, womanly re¬ 
serve—and then exclaim in pitying words, '‘How terri¬ 
ble is the life of that soul that knows not God!” 

And if separation be terrible here, what must it be 
hereafter, when to those terrors incident to the life of 
sin and without God must be added the consciousness 
that through an eternity no hope of change can come? 
Lost opportunities, golden moments wasted in sin, oh, 
how clearly will they be remembered then, when no 
more opportunities or golden moments come! To be 
separated for an interminable eternity from the pres¬ 
ence of God, from hope, from light, into outer dark¬ 
ness, “where there shall be weeping and wailing and 
gnashing of teeth.” “Such place eternal justice hath 
prepared for those rebellious.” 

And think you that this hell will not be a place 
of horror? All happiness and every true delight of 
this present world is made possible by the existence 
of God or His people. The home with all its joys, 
political freedom, fraternity; our hospitals, our 
schools—are not all these, and more, resultants of our 
knowledge of the Father? To be separated from Him 
and from His people, truly this would be a hell terrible 
enough for even the most hardened unregenerate! 

Another conclusion concerning the awful char¬ 
acter of hell, which from the nature of the argument 


80 


The Resurrection Gospel 


forces itself upon us, is that one which is derived 
from the character of hell’s occupants. If hell is to 
be the abode of liars, thieves, murderers, cut-throats, 
adulterers, whoremongers, gossipers, slanderers, the devil 
and his angels, it will indeed be a terrible place. The 
wrangling, the back-biting, the wailings of despair, the 
groanings and gnashings of teeth, and that through 
an endless eternity, such a hell as this should be enough 
to make the sinner’s blood run cold. In such a hell 
all the wicked of all the ages will be gathered together 
and there will be no forgiveness nor any hope of refor¬ 
mation; but brooding over all there will be an eternal 
darkness caused by the absence of God. Such will be 
the terrible penalty reserved for those who refuse 
God’s mercy. 

When we think of all this, do we not wonder if 
God could allow a conscious hell through all the un¬ 
ending ages of eternity? Would not the “outer dark¬ 
ness” mean total destruction of the refuse heap of 
the world? Could God allow such a place to continue 
forever? Much there is in the Word to incline one 
to this view of it, that hell, after all, means that the 
wicked will be absolutely destroyed. Whatever it is, 
we know that it is separation from the Father of love. 

IV. The Duration of Hell. 

During our argument on future punishment, we 
have been tacitly assuming that hell was to be of 
eternal duration. Is this assumption a reasonable one? 
How long will hell last? is therefore the next question 
which logically confronts us. 

There are those who believe that hell will be a 
place where some soul, less guilty than others, will be 


Hell 


81 


boiled, fried or tormented in half a dozen fiendish ways 
for a few thousand years; then, when he has been 
purged of all his meanness, he will be permitted to 
enter the realms of glory. Hell is not a reform 
school; hell is penalty attached to law. Hell is not a 
place to get ready for heaven. In this life man is to 
prepare for the life beyond. The only pardon that 
the Bible teaches is Christ. If we reject Him as God's 
pardon, there is no other opportunity for change. 
Punishment will last just as long as man is guilty, un¬ 
der law. If there is no pardon after death—and if 
there is, man, as yet, has never received the revela¬ 
tion of it—and if man, at death, is guilty under law, 
then punishment must last as long as guilt lasts. If 
there is no pardon after death, then guilt would be 
eternal. If guilt is eternal, then punishment or penalty 
must be eternal, everlasting, never-ending. Punish¬ 
ment never makes a man any better when in that pun¬ 
ishment he is separated from all means of reformation. 
In our last division we found that hell was banish¬ 
ment from the presence of God into outer darkness, 
away from light, from joy, from all contact with 
righteousness. 

“ A dungeon horrible on all sides round, 

As one great furnace flamed; yet from those flames no light, 
but rather darkness visible, 

Served only to discover sights of woe, 

Regions of sorrow, doleful shades where peace and rest ean 
never dwell, hope never comes.” 

If this is hell, then what chance has man for 
reformation? He is far removed from all opportu¬ 
nity of change. No missionary can come to him with 
the life-giving message. No prayers of a God-fear- 

6 


82 


The Resurrection Gospel 


ing mother can allure him upward. His day of oppor¬ 
tunity is over. The company in which he finds him¬ 
self is not the kind which will work for his better¬ 
ment. In the life which we live to-day, even that 
one who desires fervently to live the life of purity will 
find it impossible to do so if he be continually envi¬ 
roned by sin. In hell, where there is no environment 
save that which is low and vile, how can one even 
hope for change for the better? Hell in duration is 
eternal, a place of doom and despair. 

Conclusion. 

Sad and horrible though the fact of hell may be— 
its existence, its futurity, its terrible and eternal char¬ 
acter—yet how human hearts should thrill with joy 
because a loving Father has mercifully prepared a way 
of escape. When man falls, and by his fall condemns 
himself to eternal penalty, the Father, because He so 
loved the world, was willing to bankrupt heaven itself 
that the pardon might be given. Reject not, then, this 
day, that pardon so mercifully offered to us who are 
worthy only of justice. Mercy is yours, freedom, 
light and hope. Oh, accept it while you may! 


III. 

WARMING AT THE DEVIL’S FIRE 


Text. —“Now Peter was sitting without in the court: and a 
maid came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus the Gal- 
ilaean. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what 
thou sayest. And when he was gone out into the porch, another 
maid saw him, and saith unto them that were there, This man 
also was with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied with an 
oath, I know not the man. And after a little while they that 
stood by came and said unto Peter, Of a truth thou art one of 
them; for thy speech maketh thee known. Then began he to 
curse and to swear, I know not the man. And straightway the 
cock crew. And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had 
said, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he 
went out, and wept bitterly. ” —Matt. 26: 69-75. 

J ESUS lived more in the last week of His life than in 
all the rest of it put together. In that wonderful 
week of His passion there were great moments and 
high days, but one of the most memorable is the event 
which we wish to consider in this address. So like 
to our own experiences is this of Peter’s denial that the 
brief record of it reads like a story of our modern 
Christian life. There is in the scene which we wish 
to paint that which should search our hearts with a 
deep searching. 

After the first wild fear which had scattered the 
disciples in shameful flight, Peter, rallying his cour¬ 
age somewhat, had followed at a distance until he had 

83 


84 


The Resurrection Gospel 


come at last to the court of the house of Caiaphas, 
the high priest. John, with his accustomed courage, 
had gone up boldly into the palace that he might be 
as near as possible to his Master. Sudden fear seems 
never to have been the weakness of John, and on this 
occasion he elicits our admiration by his fine, brave 
bearing. Peter, however, his thoughts still confused 
and his brain awhirl with the sudden and unexpected 
turn affairs had taken, advanced uncertainly into the 
middle of the court, where, because of the chill of the 
spring night, a charcoal fire had been lighted. 
“The glow of the charcoal, around which occasionally 
a blue flame played, threw a peculiar sheen on the 
bearded faces of the men as they crowded around it 
and talked of the events of the night, describing with 
Eastern volubilit}^, to those who had not been there, 
the things that had happened in the garden, and ex¬ 
changing, as is the manner of such serving-men and 
officials, opinions and exaggerated denunciation con¬ 
cerning Him who had been captured with such un¬ 
expected ease and was now their master’s safe prisoner. 
As the red light glowed and flickered, it threw the long 
shadows of these men across the inner court, up the 
walls toward the gallery that ran around; up there, 
where the lamps and lights within, as they moved 
along the apartments and corridor, revealed other 
faces; there, where, in an inner audience-chamber, the 
prisoner was confronted by his accuser, enemy and 
judge. ’ ’ The night was cold, and Peter now approaches 
the group around the fire that he might better hear 
what they have to say, for away from the cheerful 
blaze he is more than ever alone and without. The 
events of the night have caused him to feel forsaken, 


Warming at the Devil’s Fire 


85 


and even though these are the enemies of the Lord, it 
is better to be with them than to be alone. He there¬ 
fore joins the group around the fire, and extends his 
hands over the welcome blaze. Now he sits down, then 
he rises again. It is “this restlessness of attempted 
indifference which first attracts the attention of the 
serving-maid who had admitted him to the court. 
Peering for a moment intently into his face, she boldly 
accuses him of being one of the companions of Jesus. 
Why should he incriminate himself before these me¬ 
nials who had no right to question him? Who were 
they? They had no authority. Then Peter was for 
the moment afraid; the chill of the night had struck 
deep into his very soul. Hence he answered at once, 
and with emphasis, denying all knowledge of the 
events of the night, yea, even of the very meaning of 
the words which the woman spake. But, as is always 
the case, he had denied too much, he had been too 
emphatic, not to bring immediately upon himself 
another, and this time a more vehement, accusation . 9 ’ 
How striking is the description of the struggle in 
the soul of Peter as given by Farrar: “What had he 
to do there? Or why should he incriminate himself, 
or perhaps Christ, by a needless confession to those 
who had neither the moral nor the legal right to exact 
it? That was all that he now remembered or thought: 
nothing about any denial of Christ. And so, as they 
were still chatting together, perhaps bandying words, 
Peter withdrew. We can not judge how long time had 
passed, but this we gather, that the words of the 
woman had either not made any impression on those 
around the fire, or that the bold denial of Peter had 
satisfied them. Presently we find Peter walking away 


86 


The Resurrection Gospel 


down the porch which ran around and opened into 
the outer court. He was not thinking of anything else 
now than how chilly it was and how right he had been 
in not being trapped by that woman. And so he 
heeded it not, as his footfall sounded upon the marble- 
paved porch, that at that moment the cock crew. 
But there was no sleep that night in the high priest’s 
palace. As he walked down the porch toward the 
outer court, first one maid met him, and as he re¬ 
turned from the outer court he once more met his old 
accuser, the door portress; and as he crossed the inner 
court, to mingle with the group around the fire, where 
he had formerly found safety, he was first accosted by 
one man and then all around the fire turned upon 
him, and each and all had the same thing to say, the 
same charge to make: that he was also one of the dis¬ 
ciples of Jesus of Nazareth. But Peter’s resolve was 
taken: he was quite sure he was right, and to each 
separately, and then to all together, he gave the same 
denial, more brief now, for he was collected and 
determined, but more emphatic even with an oath. 
And once more he silenced suspicion for a time.” 

About an hour had passed since Peter’s second 
denial had so effectively silenced his determined accus¬ 
ers. In this time he had opportunity to think upon 
his action, and the thinking had made him nervously 
garrulous. And it was just this which at last betrayed 
him to those who were covertly watching him. “Of 
a truth thou art one of them; for thy speech maketh 
thee known.” Thus spoke one of the bystanders. 
“Thy words, that barbarous dialect of Galilee—why, 
we could not mistake it; thou art one of them, and 
there is no use for thee to deny it.” This time, with 


Warming at the Devil’s Fire 87 

oaths and curses and imprecations upon himself, Peter, 
in a veritable frenzy of rage, repeated his denial. “I 
do not know the man.” No sooner had the words 
been uttered than high and shrill came to the startled 
ears of the disciple the crowing of the cock. The 
persistency of its sound pierced even into the soul of 
Peter—and he remembered. He remembered his boast¬ 
ful words when with swagger he had said to Jesus: 
“I will go with thee to prison and to death, dear 
Lord. I will draw my sword and will strike for thy 
Kingdom.” And now, in the first battle against 
a crowd of menials, he has surrendered and denied 
his very faith in the Lord Jesus. And Peter remem¬ 
bered! Oh, the blessing of memory, even though its 
awakening may sear the very soul with pain and bring 
to our eyes a torrent of bitter tears. Note again the 
words of Farrar: “He remembered the words of warn¬ 
ing prediction which the Lord had spoken. He looked 
up, and, as he looked, he saw up there how that just 
at that moment the Lord turned round and looked 
upon him—yes, in all that assembly, upon Peter. His 
eyes spake His words: nay, much more, they searched 
down to the innermost depths of Peter’s heart and 
broke them open. They pierced through all the self- 
delusion, false shame and fear. They reached the 
man, the disciple, the lover of Jesus. Forth they 
burst, the waters of conviction, of true shame, of heart 
sorrow, of the agonies of self-condemnation, and, 
bitterly weeping, he rushed from under those suns that 
had melted the ice of death and burnt into his heart— 
out from that cursed place of betrayal by Israel, by 
the high priest, and even by the representative dis¬ 
ciple.” Just as a berg of ice melts in a warm sum- 


88 


The Resurrection Gospel 


mer sea, so all the anger and uncertainty melted out 
of the heart of Peter, and out into the darkness he 
rushed that there in the bitterness of repentance, in 
the company of memory, in his self-inflicted solitude, 
he might begin the new life and lay hold upon the 
courage and power to become the preacher of Pentecost. 

How human is this whole narrative and of what a 
truly human experience it tells us. Every time I read 
it I am reminded of a similar experience—yea, 
of many such—in my own Christian life. How often, 
in unguarded moment and sometimes—God pity us— 
even with calculated carelessness, have we been guilty 
of denying our Lord. It is a strange time in which 
we live. Even in the pulpits of the land, too many 
times there are those who wear the cloth of a servant 
of the Lord whose chief passion seems to be that of 
recanting. It is not recanting that we need to-day, 
either in the pew by lives of unfaithfulness or in the 
pulpit by negative and gloomy words of doubt. Rather, 
it is the good confession, and with the confidence born 
of experience in the wonderful grace of God, for which 
the world to-day is standing in terrible need. A 
solemn and searching examination of our hearts will 
help us to judge ourselves. Let us, then, consider how 
we deny Christ. We can perhaps better understand 
our denial if we inquire into the manner of confessing 
Him. 

I. How Do We Confess Christ? 

1. We confess Him with our mouths. 

You will remember the words of Paul: “If thou 
shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt 
believe in thy heart that God raised him from the 


Warming at the Devil’s Fire 89 

dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart man 
believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth 
confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:9, 10). 
What a blessed experience in the life of the Christian 
is this confession. Do you not remember the time, 
perhaps long ago, when you walked down the aisle in 
a little, old church and before your friends and 
neighbors, before father and mother and brothers 
and sisters, you confessed that with all your heart 
you believed Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of the 
living God, and your Savior and Redeemer? Never 
will you forget that precious hour. It is truly the 
start to Christ—this wonderful act when before men 
we accept Him as our Prophet, Priest and King. 

2 .We confess Jesus also in our baptism. 

Did you ever think of baptism as an act of con¬ 
fession? Well, it is just that. Here, in an act, in a 
manner which may be seen by men, we confess before 
the world that we believe Jesus died for our sins, 
that He was buried in the new tomb of Joseph of 
Arimathaea, and that on the morning of the third day 
He came forth from the tomb, the firstfruits of them 
that slept. This is a confession to the eye. When 
we think of what it is that we confess in this act we 
can never have any doubt at all about how the act 
itself is to be performed. When we keep constantly 
before us the truth that we are confessing our faith in 
the fact that God hath raised Jesus from the dead 
we will in picture want to be raised with Him. What 
a solemn and beautiful confession is this act. 

3. We confess Jesus in the Lord’s Supper. 

When on the Lord’s Day we who are His people 
gather around His table in the house which through 


90 


The Resurrection Gospel 


tears and heartaches and sacrifice has been dedicated 
to His service, we are confessing to the world two 
great and solemn truths. We are confessing, first, 
that we still believe with all our hearts that His blood 
shed in such agony on Calvary’s cross was offered for 
the remission of our sins. It is a confession of our 
faith in the atonement of the Christ of God. In the 
second place, it is a confession of our faith in His 
second coming, as stated in the language of Paul: 
“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, 
ye proclaim [or publish] the Lord’s death till he 
come” (1 Cor. 11:26). In this verse the apostle tells 
the whole story of the confessional value of the Lord’s 
Supper when he says: “Ye do show forth [or con¬ 
fess] that you believe in the death of Jesus until he 
comes again.” 

Did you ever notice the fact that when those who 
believe in fads and pseudo-religions which blaspheme 
the very name of the Lord by calling themselves 
Christian come to the place in their thinking that 
they no longer believe Jesus to be the only begotten 
Son of the living God and the Savior of the world, 
they no longer practice baptism or the Lord’s Supper? 
And why not? Because of the fact that baptism 
and the Lord’s Supper testify to the deity of Jesus. 
When we do these things we show to the world that 
we believe in Him as Savior and that we have accepted 
Him as the Lord of our lives. 

4. We confess Jesus in the songs we sing. 

I have ever been a lover of gospel music. It has 
always seemed to me that there are deep meanings in 
the gospel story which can be brought to the hungry 
heart only through the swelling cadences of a great 


Warming at the Devil’s Fire 91 

gospel song. Perhaps the meaning was always there 
even in the preached Word, but the emotional empha¬ 
sis comes only through the warm and tender strains 
of gospel music. And how many and how powerful 
are our confessions of faith in Christ through the great 
songs. 

“All hail the power of Jesus’ name, 

Let angels prostrate fall; 

Bring forth the royal diadem, 

And crown Him Lord of all. ’ ’ 

Who can truly sing this but the man who knows 
Jesus as Lord and King, and to whom the most glori¬ 
ous event to be imagined is the coronation of the One 
to whose authority he has so gladly surrendered? The 
reason why a great service in song is always the best 
preparation for the proclamation of a dynamic message 
in word is found perhaps just here. A song service is 
a confessional. To confess one’s faith is only to con¬ 
firm one in that faith. To be confirmed is to make one 
more ready and eager to do all within his power to 
win other men to the Lord and King. And then the 
effect on the sinner himself is almost as marked. He 
hears a great crowd of people with shining faces sing¬ 
ing so confidently of their Redeemer that their faith 
become a part of his soul, and he is ready to re¬ 
ceive with kindness the truth as it is preached in 
word. 

5. We confess Christ in the lives we live day by day. 

After all, this is the most powerful confession. It 
is powerful in its persuasive influence. The one un¬ 
answerable argument for the religion of the Lord 
Jesus is a life which is hid with Christ in God. Here 
is an open Bible which the world may read—a Bible 


92 


The Resurrection Gospel 


whose story is so sweet and winsome that the hardest 
sinner can not withstand its wooing. 

I remember an experience in my own ministry. In 
a little eastern Oregon town, in one of our meetings, 
a young barber came forward one morning and made 
the good confession. Four years before one of the 
most notoriously wicked men in the community had 
become a Christian. His conversion had been genuine, 
for from the day of his coming to Christ he had 
turned from his old sins and for four years had lived 
the life of a true child of the King. When Bobby 
Zeverly, the young barber, made his decision, the old 
gentleman (Colonel Draper), who had long been 
Bobby’s friend, was almost overcome with joy. As he 
took Bob by the hand after the service he said: “Old 
boy, I can not tell you how glad I am. I have not the 
words to do that, but, Bob, this is my prayer for you, 
that you may make good.” Bobby answered him: 
“Colonel, for four years I have been watching you. 
When you became a Christian I was stirred as I had 
never been stirred before. I said then: ‘If Colonel 
Draper makes good, if it really means something to his 
life, I, too, will become a Christian.’ Colonel, you 
have made good. I have heard Brother Kellems but 
twice, but that which has brought me to my Lord to¬ 
day is your life, which every day is the kind of life 
the Christ Himself would have you live.” I remem¬ 
ber when Colonel Draper told me the story the tears 
rolled down his face as he said: “Brother Kellems, I 
never dreamed that any one was watching me, and 
here the Lord has used my poor, humble life to bring 
one of my dearest friends to himself.” Ah! what a 
power to persuade men is a transformed life. Let us 


Warming at the Devil’s Fire 93 

confess Him day by day by the lives we live before the 
world, remembering that we are the world’s Bible, the 
only one it will read and the only one it cares any¬ 
thing about. 

II. How Do We Deny Christ? 

1. We deny Him by neglecting the services of the 
Lord’s house. 

On the Lord’s Day we have an appointment with 
the King. He has promised to meet us in an especially 
intimate communion at His Supper. When we allow 
some trivial thing to keep us from that appointment, 
we have said to the world, “We do not care; we have 
lost our interest in the things divine.” When on a 
Lord’s Day night our pastor comes before the congre¬ 
gation to bring the message of light and hope to those 
assembled in the house of God, and we are at the pic¬ 
ture-show or somewhere else, on pleasure bent, we have 
denied our Lord. When the members of the body of 
Christ come together to pray for the souls of lost men 
and women, and we are too tired or busy to be inter¬ 
ested, we are denying the Lord. 

2 . We deny Jesus when we live unfaithful lives 
before the world. 

I am not afraid of infidelity. Infidelity has tried 
its best, but it can not overthrow the mighty rock 
foundation of the blessed church of Christ. I am not 
afraid of destructive higher criticism. Fads will for a 
time thrive and have their day. The church is built 
upon the big things of the universe of God, and all the 
powers of earth and hell can not overthrow it. But 
there is an enemy of which I am afraid. That enemy 
is worldliness in the church. Worldliness can sap the 


94 


The Resurrection Gospel 


very vitals of the church, destroy her consciousness 
of her mission, and make her lukewarm about the divine 
command of the Lord who loved her so much that He 
gave His own precious blood that she might be redeemed 
from sin. Unfaithfulness is dangerous because it gives 
the wrong view of Jesus to the world. He is the truth 
and the life, and when men see Him in His beauty 
they are glad to own Him, but the life of the unfaith¬ 
ful Christian gives to the world a distorted view of the 
blessed Savior. 

3. We deny Christ when we neglect the Lord f s 
Supper. 

We have an appointment with Jesus at His table, 
and that appointment comes every Lord’s Day morn¬ 
ing. If we were invited to meet the President of the 
United States at the White House, we would consider 
the appointment one of such consummate dignity that 
we would on no account miss it, and yet how often 
are we guilty of forgetting the meeting with our Lord 
there at His table, where in solemn reverence we may 
remember how great for us was His sacrifice. And to 
thus absent ourselves is a denial of our Lord. When 
we consider the fact that the Supper is by its very 
nature a great confession, the neglect or refusal to 
make that confession is tantamount to a denial itself. 
We say to the world by this action that the Supper 
and its meaning are to us a thing inconsequential and 
without significance. I am more and more impressed 
with the sad fact that our own people, who have 
avowedly aligned themselves with the movement for 
the restoration of New Testament Christianity, need 
to-day a revival of conscience as to the Lord’s Supper. 
I have never known a truly great Christian who was 


Warming at the Devil's Fire 95 

remiss in his duty toward this great institution. The 
constant reminder of the cost of our redemption is a 
prime necessity to the growth of a strong Christian 
character. Let us forsake not, as we value our very 
faith, the assembling of ourselves together as the 
manner of some is. 

4. We deny Jesus our Lord by neglecting oppor¬ 
tunities to save men from their sins. 

Sometimes it is easy for us to become greatly 
exercised over some heathen or pagan across the world 
from us who is in darkness, and yet we allow our own 
friends to go down to Christless graves and without 
so much as lifting a finger to save them. I wonder why 
we are thus so careless. We trample upon the precious 
souls of men as though they were but common clay. 
Of what value is that faith which does not become hot 
with zeal in the presence of one who knows not Christ 
as Savior? I shall never forget an experience in an 
Eastern city. The mayor of the town was asked by the 
men’s Bible class to deliver an address. In the speech 
which he gave he said: “There is a man in this class 
to-day who has lived next door to me for more than 
twenty years. We belong to the same political party. 
We are interested in the same business ventures; we 
are friends, and yet in all these years, while he has 
been a member of the church, never once has he in¬ 
vited me to be a Christian.” It seems to me that had 
I been the man thus referred to that morning I would 
have gone through the floor with chagrin and mortifi¬ 
cation. At the judgment-bar of our God there will be 
hundreds who will point their fingers at us and de¬ 
spairingly say, “You had the chance, but you did not 
tell me of your Lord.” And when thus we refuse to 


96 


The Resurrection Gospel 


exercise our divine rights, we are telling the world by 
our neglect that we do not really care for our Lord 
nor the souls of men who in their sins are separated 
from the glorious presence of our Father. God forgive 
us for our criminal neglect of those who around us 
ever are dying. 

5. Many times we deny our Lord when we move 
into a new community and neglect to place our mem¬ 
bership with the local church. 

This condition obtains to an alarming extent here 
in our beloved Westland. Thousands there are who 
back East were faithful Christians, but who, moving 
here, have left their religion on the eastern slope of 
the Rocky Mountains. Somehow they feel wdien they 
come to the West that they are on a vacation, even as 
regards the matters of faith. Too often their attitude is 
expressed in the prayer of the little girl who on the 
eve of her departure for the West said, “Good-bye, 
God; we are going to California.*’ 

I do not know of a quicker way to deny our Lord 
and to lose our faith altogether than to neglect to 
affiliate with the local church in the new home. If we 
neglect to eat and to rest or to exercise, we will not for 
long live in the physical world. And does not this 
same rule apply with tremendous force to our spiritual 
existence? If one does not exercise and eat of the 
spiritual food, the spiritual man will soon cease to be. 
I remember an illustration of such a denial which 
took place right here in your own beloved Golden 
State. The minister and your evangelist visited in the 
home of a woman who told us with pride that she 
was a member of the great Independence Boulevard 
Christian Church in Kansas City, Missouri. I con- 


Warming at the Devil’s Fire 97 

gratulated her upon the fact, for it is indeed an honor 
to be a member of that great church. Then the ques¬ 
tion was asked, “And, Madam, how long have you 
been in Califomia?" The answer was one which, 
unfortunately, is too often given, “I have been here 
about twelve years." “And you are still a member 
in Kansas City? Impossible, Madame, for you are 
living here; all your interests in life are here. How 
can it be, then, that you are a member of the church 
in Kansas City? Tell me your story, for I want to 
know why it is that you have been here for twelve 
years and still consider yourself a member of the 
church in Kansas City." “When I came to California, 
Brother Kellems, I went to the church the very first 
Sunday morning, for back East I was always faithful 
and never even thought of missing the service unless 
prevented by sickness. The building was new, the 
people were strange, and to me they were cold. I 
have found since that this is a characteristic of all the 
Western people, or, at least, Eastern folks often think 
them that way. I sat in the back part of the church, 
and as soon as the sermon was over I went out, and 
at home that afternoon I cried because of sheer loneli¬ 
ness. The next week I went again, but it was the same 
thing. Gradually I began to stay at home on Sunday, 
a thing I can not remember doing at all when back 
home in the East. One day I became acquainted with 
a neighbor, and the family invited us to go with them 
on a Sunday picnic. We went, and this one was just 
the beginning of many others which followed it. 
Gradually we came to the place that we never went 
to the church at all. It has been years since I was in 
a service." “Do your children attend the Bible 

7 


98 


The Resurrection Gospel 


school?” was the next question. “No, they do not 
attend. It is eight blocks to the church and they must 
cross two car lines to get there; so I have not sent 
them.” “In a word, then, they are as much little 
heathens or pagans as the boys and girls of China or 
Japan. Jesus said that we know not the day nor the 
hour when the Son of man cometh. If He were to come 
to-day, would you be ready to meet Him?” There 
were tears in her eyes as she answered: “No, Brother 
Kellems, I am not ready to meet the Lord, for I have 
been unfaithful. I expect that by my neglect I have 
denied my Savior.” Ah! she was right; she had 
denied that Jesus was any longer her Savior. As for 
her membership being with the church in Kansas City, 
this was absolute nonsense, for when she left the East 
in reality she took her membership with her. Our 
membership is where we ourselves are. We talk about 
our letters, when the fact of the matter is that the real 
letter is our own personalities, our own selves. Paul 
says that we are living letters, known and read of all 
men. You are the letter the church wants. The quick¬ 
est way to deny Christ is to neglect to line up with 
the activities of the local congregation. 

III. Why Do We Deny Christ? 

1. Sometimes ive deny Him because, like Peter, we 
follow afar off. 

John did not deny the Savior, because he was close 
to Him all the way. He went with his Lord boldly 
into the judgment-hall and stood by Christ during the 
farce called a trial. Peter, however, fled with the rest 
of the terrified and disappointed disciples when Christ 
was apprehended. After awhile he came to himself 


Warming at the Devil's Fire 


99 


and then followed at a distance. It is ever this man 
who gets into trouble. The soldier who in the thick 
of the battle is fighting with all his might does not 
know half as much fear as does the one who at a dis¬ 
tance is waiting for the fight to begin. The man who 
keeps close to the great, loving heart of the King, who 
communes with Him and walks and talks with Him, is 
not in any great danger of denying the faith. Keep 
close to the great, throbbing heart of love, in prayer 
and obedience and service, and doubts and fears will 
fade away into the glorious certainty of one who has 
experienced the power of complete salvation. 

2. Sometimes Christians deny Christ because they 
get into the wrong crowd. 

Judas, instead of taking the way that led to the 
cross, instead of going to Calvary and there prostrat¬ 
ing himself in agony at his Savior’s feet, went back to 
the priests who with him had plotted the death of 
Jesus. He was in the wrong company, and he fell. 
Peter joined the group around the devil’s fire and there 
warmed his hands. It was in this atmosphere, among 
those who cared nothing for Jesus, that he was tempted 
to deny Christ. The man who is constantly in Chris¬ 
tian company will find that there are but few tempta¬ 
tions of this nature to be overcome, for the strength 
and the courage of numbers is his and he will find 
it easy to serve God. It is when one must stand alone 
for his King among those who are the enemies of the 
Lord that the real test of character comes. Knowing 
what we know to-day about the modifying influence of 
environment on all forms of life, need we be told that 
to surround ourselves with an unhealthy spiritual en¬ 
vironment means spiritual decay and ruin? One is 


100 


The Resurrection Gospel 


known by the company he keeps, and if those who are 
his friends are not friends of the Lord Jesus, how can 
he long be true and faithful to his Master? There will 
be but one end, and that denial of Jesus. 

3. Sometimes there are those who deny Christ 
because of a godless home influence. 

I always have a deep sympathy for one who is 
forced to live the Christian life in a home where 
there is no help of a spiritual nature. It is hard for 
a husband to be a true Christian when his wife cares 
nothing at all for the things of the Kingdom. And it 
is difficult indeed for a woman to be the Christian 
she should be when her husband has no interest at all. 
There are many, perhaps even in this audience, who 
could give sad testimony to the fact that what we 
say here is true. And there are many who can not 
stand it, and after a vain struggle they give up and 
deny their faith in Christ. It is evident that these 
will never have any influence in leading their loved 
ones to the dear Lord. God never uses unfaithful 
servants. There is, after all, but one way for us to 
win those who are near and dear to our hearts: by 
placing ourselves in that position where God can use 
us. If you wait for your loved ones, well and good. 
But be careful where you wait. You will never bring 
them to decision for Christ if you wait outside the 
church. There is but one place to wait if you would 
have your efforts—or, shall we say it, your waiting?— 
crowned with success, and that is in the church. Live 
before them such a life of faithfulness that they will 
think there is something in your religion, and will want 
to come. Yes, you will not be able to keep them out if 
you follow the teaching of the Lord when He said: 


Warming at the Devil’s Fire 101 

“Even so let your light shine before men; that they 
may see your good works, and glorify your Father 
who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). Do you not think 
that this applies to the home as well? Will not our 
loved ones see our light even more quickly than those 
who are further from us? How vividly the truth of 
this was illustrated to me in a meeting in the eastern 
part of my own State! I noticed that the little, black- 
eyed woman who played our piano and attended every 
service of the meeting had her six children always with 
her. No matter how cold it was (and the weather 
was bitter cold in that campaign), she was always 
present with a bright smile and a quiet confidence in 
the work of the Lord. I noted, however, the absence 
of her husband, and wondered why he did not come. 
One day I asked my brother-in-law, who was the minis¬ 
ter of the church, to tell me about her. “She is the 
most faithful woman in this church,” said he. “She 
never misses a service; she gives and she works. Her 
husband is one of my good friends, a fine man, but he 
is not a Christian. His people back in Iowa are 
devoted members of the church, but so far we have 
been unable to interest Glen in the work. I sometimes 
think that he is far more interested than he is willing 
to let on, but he has never made a public decision 
for the Kingdom.” I remember the day we dined at 
the home. The husband was very courteous to us, but 
when we mentioned religion he became reticent, and 
we quickly saw that it would be a mistake to press the 
matter at all. After he had gone to work we asked the 
wife about him. She said to me: “Brother Kellems, 
Glen is not a Christian, but I am hoping and praying 
every day that something will be done to bring him to 


102 


The Resurrection Gospel 


Christ. I have said very little to him, although he 
knows well how gloriously happy I would be if he 
would but come with the family and confess his faith 
in our Lord. While I have said but little, yet I have 
tried to live before him such a life as would make him 
desire to be a Christian. I feel that I am Christ's 
representative in his home, and that much depends 
upon me as to what he will think about the church. I 
feel that if I am faithful, God will some day answer 
my prayer and Glen will come to Christ.’’ As we left 
the little home I said to the minister: “If ever there 
was one whose prayer should go up for a memorial 
before God, surely it is the prayer of this woman. 
May it be that the Father will graciously answer her 
before this meeting shall close.” I shall never forget 
the last night of that great campaign. Little Vera, 
Glen’s youngest child, just six years of age, came to 
me, her black eyes shining, and said: “Papa is coming 
to church to-night. We placed his good clothes where 
he can find them when he comes home from work, and 
he is coming to-night.” If husbands and fathers who 
are not Christians could know how much happiness 
they could bring to their loved ones by sometimes 
merely coming to the service, I wonder if they would 
stay away as indifferently as they do. It was late in 
the song service when Glen came into the room with 
his friend Steve. They were separated, because the 
building was packed and men were standing all around 
the walls. The sermon was preached and the invitation 
song had begun, when I noticed Glen make a sign to 
Steve, who was across the room, and both of them— 
two big, strong men, each weighing more than two 
hundred pounds—came down the aisle to confess their 


Warming at the Devil’s Fire 


103 


faith in Christ. The little woman at the piano turned 
white, and a big tear stole softly down her cheek, 
but she went right on playing the song of invitation. 
It was a happy hour in that church, I can tell you, 
when these two men, widely known and influential as 
they were, came to stand with their families for the 
truth. After the service was over, Glen said to me, as 
I was extending to him my heartiest congratulations 
because of the manly step he had taken: “Brother 
Kellems, I have heard you but twice in all this meet¬ 
ing. It has not been anything which you have said 
that has won me to the Savior. There is my preacher” 
—and he pointed proudly toward his wife, who was 
talking happily with some of her friends. There were 
tears on his honest face as he told me how many times 
he had felt like a whipped cur when his wife had 
taken the children and gone off to the church alone. 
“I could not stand it any longer, for I have been 
living with a saint in my home, and I just had to 
come and do my poor best to serve the same Lord 
whom she loves and whom she has by her beautiful 
life preached in my home.” That man is an officer in 
the church to-day. He is there because his wife had 
the faith and love to live true and strong for her 
Master. Had she been unfaithful she never would 
have won her husband to the church. God uses faith¬ 
ful servants, let us repeat it again, for only such can 
preach the truth as Jesus would have it preached. 

Are you denying the Lord who has done so much 
for you? Often we are guilty before we even think 
about it. If we find ourselves slipping, let us, like the 
man about whom we have studied to-day, in tears of 
sorrow repent and turn from our backsliding, and 


104 


The Resurrection Gospel 


thus prepare ourselves as did he for the mighty 
Pentecosts which are ahead of us. Pentecost was 
given, not to Peter the denier, but to Peter the Spirit- 
filled. 


IV. 


SAVING FAITH 


Text. —“And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleas¬ 
ing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, 
and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him. “—Heb. 
11 : 6 . 

ERY few there are to-day who understand just 



V how vast is the scope of faith. A young man said 
to me recently: “Brother Kellems, there is no room 
for faith in the lives we live now. We are living in a 
scientific time and men are concerned only about facts; 
they have no time to worry about faith.” Yet how 
widely that young man missed the mark. No room for 
faith? Why, the biggest and best things of our lives 
belong to us because we do have faith; they are 
possible to us because there is faith in the world. 
Because of faith in mother I learn the laws of nature— 
that fire burns, that water drowns, etc. Because of 
faith in some teacher I learn the finest things in philos¬ 
ophy and science. I believe that there was a battle of 
Bunker Hill because I credit the testimony concerning 
that battle, because I believe in the historical accuracy 
of the men who have written about it. I have never 
had the time nor the equipment to work out to my 
satisfaction some of the great scientific problems, but 
I am perfectly willing to accept the conclusions of 
those men who are specialists in their line and enjoy 


105 


106 


The Resurrection Gospel 


the results which these conclusions bring to me. 
Because of faith the home relation is possible. Were 
it not for faith of husband in his wife or of wife in 
her husband, there could be no home at all. Ninety- 
five per cent, of the business of America to-day is done 
by cheque, showing that men trust each other, that 
they have faith in each other. No room for faith? 
The fact of the matter is that there could be no life, 
in the real sense, in our modern world at all were it 
not for faith. Faith is in reality the biggest thing in 
our lives. 

In the New Testament, faith occupies a fundamental 
position. The words of the text are significant: “With¬ 
out faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto God.” 
We may be moral, we may be philanthropic, we may 
be good citizens, we may have the welfare of the com¬ 
munity at heart, but we can not please God if we have 
not faith. The man to whom faith is an impossible 
thing can not know God. The commission of our Lord 
as given in Mark also emphasizes this foundational 
significance of faith: 4 ‘ He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be con¬ 
demned” (Mark 16:16). If one will be condemned 
because he hath not faith, surely it is of supreme im¬ 
portance that he know what faith is and how it comes. 

I. What Is Faith? 

The definition of the writer of the Hebrew letter 
is one deserving of attention. In that most wonderful 
of New Testament chapters on faith he says: “Now 
faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction 
of things not seen” (Heb. 1:1). An assurance of 
things hoped for; the assurance or certainty in our 


Saving Faith 


107 


own hearts that those things for which we hope are 
stedfast, that they are realities. We hope for eternal 
life. There is no scientific apparatus yet discovered, 
no way yet known, by which we can prove that im¬ 
mortality is an actuality. Aside from the demonstra¬ 
tion in the resurrection of Jesus, there is no proof. 
And yet, to the man who has faith there is the assur¬ 
ance that immortality is an actuality, that it truly does 
exist, and that after awhile we shall see and know 
our loved ones who have gone on before us. “The 
conviction of things not seen.” The certainty in our 
hearts that the unseen is not unreal, but only unseen. 
What a glorious definition! 

But there is another definition of faith. Primarily 
it is the belief of testimony, the credence of facts. I 
credit the facts concerning our Civil War, and I believe 
in the actuality of that war. If I credit the testimony 
concerning the resurrection of my Lord from the grave, 
I believe in the resurrection. The accuracy of this 
definition is attested in the words of John when he 
tells the reason for the writing of his Gospel; “Many 
other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of his 
disciples, which are not written in this book: but these 
are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ 
the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life 
in his name.” Here in the New Testament we have a 
record of the life of Jesus, an incomplete record, 
brief and fragmentary; a record of facts, by reading 
of which we may accept the testimony concerning His 
person and His mission in the world. When we accept 
these records as facts, then we have faith in that One 
of whom they are an attestation; we have faith in Him 
as the Son of the living God. 


108 


The Resurrection Gospel 


Man by nature loves truth in the concrete rather 
than in the abstract. There are a few courageous 
souls in the world who are lovers of truth for truth’s 
sake, and who will follow with relish the abstract 
manifestations of it, but the majority of men must 
know it in tangible, realizable form. For them it is 
necessary that they handle it and see it with their 
eyes. Thus it is that when God would speak to the 
sons of men in an intelligible language He uses a form 
which will meet the desires of this great majority; He 
manifests Himself in the person of His own Son. 
This has ever been God’s method of revealing Him¬ 
self to mankind. Truth in personality; truth that 
man may see in the shining eyes of a great-hearted, 
red-blooded man; truth which is contagious because 
men can see it working in a life—this is God’s method 
used throughout all the ages. Jesus said: “I am the 
truth.” Men are not to be saved by a dogma or a 
doctrine. They are to be saved by Him, by knowing 
Him. And this is the New Testament teaching, that 
our faith is to be in Him. He is the foundation of 
the church which He has builded. Without Him there 
would be no church. A beautiful passage from Pro¬ 
fessor Denny comes to my mind just here. “When we 
open the New Testament we find ourselves in the 
presence of a glowing religious life. There is nothing 
in the world which offers any real parallel either to this 
life or to the collection of books which attests it. 
The soul, which in contemporary literature is bound 
in shallows and miseries, is here raised as on a great 
tidal wave of spiritual blessing. Nothing that belongs 
to a complete religious life is wanting; neither convic¬ 
tions nor motives, neither penitence nor ideals, 


Saving Faith 


109 


neither vocation nor the assurance of victory. And 
from beginning to end, in all its parts and aspects 
and elements, this religious life is determined by 
Christ. It owes its character at every point to Him. 
Its convictions are convictions about Him. Its hopes 
are hopes which He has inspired and which it is for 
Him to fulfill. Its ideals are born of His teaching and 
His life. Its strength is the strength of His spirit. 
If we sum it up in the one word ‘faith,’ it is faith in 
God through Him—a faith which owes to Him all that 
is characteristic in it, all that distinguishes it from 
what is elsewhere among men known by that name.” 
Without a doubt the Doctor has sensed the situation as 
the New Testament presents it. Jesus is all in all, 
and that faith which is to redeem the soul rests upon 
Him. Surely it is the significance of that mighty 
verse in which the whole gospel is concentrated: “For 
God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten 
Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, 
but have eternal life” (John 3:16). When Peter made 
the great confession, “Thou art the Christ, the Son 
of the living God,” Jesus answered: “Blessed art thou, 
Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not re¬ 
vealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 
And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and 
upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates 
of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:16- 
18). And Paul, speaking of this great rock foundation, 
says: “For other foundation can no man lay than 
that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 
3:11). Jesus is the foundation upon which our assur¬ 
ance of things hoped for rests. We hope for immor¬ 
tality, and are assured that we shall live because we 


110 


The Resurrection Gospel 


believe in Him for whom death had no terrors and the 
grave no power to hold. He is the tangible evidence 
of things not seen, for He was from the Father. Our 
faith rests upon Him. “It is that attitude of the soul 
to Jesus which is confident that the saving power of 
God is present in Him, and that there is no limit to 
what it can do.” 

II. How Is This Faith in the Son of God Produced? 

There have been many erroneous ideas concerning 
the production of faith. One of the older ones was that 
faith is a gift of God. God sends it into the heart as 
an electric flash is sent over the wire. It comes to us, 
but we know not how. It is for us to wait in passive 
attitude until it comes. There are others who feel 
that faith comes through some great and incompre¬ 
hensible experience. They have been taught all their 
lives that suddenly they will see the light and know the 
truth of the Lord, and in this way they will “get” 
religion. These and many other such errors have been 
productive of much unbelief. Many there are who are 
out of the kingdom of God to-day who might have been 
members of that Kingdom had the New Testament 
message been preached unto them in power. For the 
New Testament is clear on the method of the produc¬ 
tion of faith in the heart. Some of the plain pro¬ 
nouncements of the Word are such as that of Peter at 
the so-called council of Jerusalem: “Brethren, ye know 
that a good while ago God made choice among you, 
that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word 
of the gospel, and believe” (Acts 15:7-9). They were 
to believe on the Lord Jesus by hearing the word of the 
gospel, the good news concerning Him. The same 


Saving Faith 


111 


idea is encouched in the words concerning the Corin¬ 
thians: “And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, 
believed in the Lord with all his house; and many of 
the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized ” 
(Acts 18:8). They heard the gospel, and then, after 
hearing or because of their hearing, they believed it. 
Our Lord states the same great truth when He says in 
His so-called intercessory prayer: “Neither for these 
only do I pray, but for them also that shall believe on 
me through their word” (John 17:20). Nothing could 
be clearer than this statement. Paul forever settles 
the matter when he writes to the Romans: “So belief 
cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ ’* 
(Rom. 10:17). 

The truth concerning the Lord has been deposited 
in the word of God. While there is a multitude of in¬ 
fluences which enter into the production of faith in a 
heart, such as the influence of a godly friend, the 
prayer of a Christian mother, the life of a devoted 
loved one, yet the inspiration of all these influences is 
directly from the New Testament, for they testify of 
Christ. It is as men come in touch with the Word, 
either by reading or through preaching, that the 
evidence for the work of Jesus in the world, for His 
person, is presented in the strongest way to the mind, 
and faith comes. The primary definition holds through¬ 
out, that faith is the credence of testimony, the testi¬ 
mony which has been preserved in the pages of the 
sacred writings. 

There is a message in this truth for the preacher 
of the gospel, and for that one whose earnest desire has 
ever been to win souls to the Master. Never has the 
world needed real gospel preaching as it needs it now. 


112 


The Resurrection Gospel 


Not discussions of theology, but preaching—real preach¬ 
ing of the New Testament Christ. How often is the 
power of the Word attested in the very language used 
to describe it. Paul calls it the power of God unto 
salvation (Rom. 1:16). The Greek word which he em¬ 
ploys means “dynamite.” It is like dynamite in its 
power to stir and revolutionize. The writer of the 
Hebrew letter speaks of the Word in moving terms 
when he says: “For the word of God is living, and ac¬ 
tive [energetic], and sharper than any two-edged sword, 
and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, 
of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the 
thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). Paul 
writes also to the Philippians, and urges them that 
they continue in “holding forth the word of life” 
(Phil. 2:16). James gives his tribute to the power of 
the Word to produce faith and a new life when he 
says: “Wherefore putting away all filthiness and over¬ 
flowing of wickedness, receive with meekness the im¬ 
planted word, which is able to save your souls” (Jas. 
1:21). There never has been a place in the world, 
nor a time, since the Master walked on the earth, 
that men would not listen to the plain and beautiful 
Word if it be preached in power and enthusiasm. 
Thus alone can true living and saving faith be pro¬ 
duced in the heart which is dead in its sins. 

III. What Is the True Definition of Saving Faith? 

1. Consider it negatively. 

(1) It is not “faith alone.” I remember one time 
listening to a woman preach on the subject which we 
are considering here. She was a very brilliant and 
consecrated lady, one who with all her heart believed 


Saving Faith 


113 


the word of Christ. As she held up the Bible she said: 
“Only believe! The very moment you believe this 
blessed volume that moment are your sins taken away, 
that moment are you saved.” I am sure that woman 
was honest, but she was honestly mistaken. One 
might believe the Bible from the first chapter of 
Genesis to the last of Revelation; he might believe 
with all his heart that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 
the living God and the Savior of the world; he might 
believe that the tears and sweat and blood of Calvary’s 
cross were for his redemption—he might believe it all, 
and be utterly and forever lost. We are told that the 
demons believed and trembled, but they were not 
saved from their sins. There is no heresy in the world 
so deceptive and dangerous as the heresy of “faith 
alone.” I once heard a very enthusiastic Endeavor 
worker in the State of California tell a crowd of young 
Endeavorers that as soon as they knew John 3:16 by 
heart they were ready to go out and win the world 
to the Lord, for all they would have to tell those who 
heard their message was that faith alone would redeem 
the soul. How sad it is to teach people only a half- 
truth. The faith that saves the soul is not ‘ ‘ faith alone. ’ ’ 
(2) Saving faith is not a mere intellectual assent to 
the deity of Jesus. There are many who say: “Why, 
yes, we believe in Christ. We believe in Him just like 
we would believe in any of the wonderful historical 
characters of the past. We believe in Him just as we 
believe in Pericles, Heraclitus, Herodotus, Seneca, Paul 
or Alexander. We believe that He actually lived and 
that He was the Son of the living God, and we 
are interested in Him from purely the historical stand¬ 
point.” They believe in Him, but they are not saved 


114 


The Resurrection Gospel 


by Him. Their lives are not transformed by the power 
of His spirit. To them His love means nothing. He 
is not Lord and Savior. Like radium, their faith gives 
off light, but no heat. It is but coldly intellectual. 

(3) Living faith is not the faith which makes 
parties or divisions in the church of God. We are all 
sure that one can be a Christian and not subscribe to 
any of the peculiarities which differentiate one body 
from another. In a word, we believe that there is a 
central something, something fundamental to all the 
great orthodox religious communions, something in 
which the faith of all is rooted, which is itself the real 
saving thing. One can be saved and never believe in 
Methodism. And the Methodists believe this uni¬ 
versally. One can be redeemed and never believe at 
all in Calvinism as such. On this the Calvinists are 
agreed to a man. We acknowledge that there are 
Christians in all the denominations. There is no 
saving virtue in that which divides us. The saving 
power is in that great and fundamental truth in which 
we are all united, and which will eventually bring us 
all to the foot of Calvary’s cross a united and harmo¬ 
nious church—the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son 
of the living God, and the Savior of the sons and 
daughters of men. We are saved by our faith in 
Christ as God’s Son. We are not redeemed by theories 
about Him or dogmas invented by men concerning 
His person, but by Jesus Himself, by our faith in 
Him as a living and reigning Lord. 

2. Living or saving faith illustrated. 

In his wonderful Epistle to the Hebrews, the writer, 
in that greatest of all faith chapters in the New Testa¬ 
ment, says of Noah: “By faith Noah, being warned of 


Saving F(dth 


115 


God concerning things not seen as yet, moved with 
godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; 
through which he condemned the world, and became 
the heir of the righteousness which is according to 
faith” (Heb. 11:17). Here we have the whole story 
told. Here is a man who had a living, saving faith. 
Noah believed in God, and when God said that a flood 
was coming Noah knew that He meant just what He 
said and that the flood was really coming. He had 
utmost confidence in the word of the Lord. This is 
certainly what we need to-day. When God speaks, it 
should be ours to listen. Now, suppose Noah had said 
to the Lord: ‘ ‘ Lord, I believe in you and I believe that 
the flood is coming. About this I have not a single 
doubt. But, Lord, I do not see any use of going to all 
the work to build the ark. You can save me from the 
flood without any of that effort. All I will need to do 
is to go to the top of a high mountain and let you save 
me there. I am a believer, Lord, in the doctrine of 
‘faith alone.’ ” Do you think he would have been 
saved from the flood if he had taken this attitude? 
Not for a single moment. But suppose he had said to 
the Lord: “Now, Father, I believe the flood is coming, 
but I do not like the shape of the ark. It is not long 
enough and it is too high. Then, also, I do not like 
the kind of material which you have told me to use 
in its construction. Now, Lord, I want to change the 
whole thing and build it as I think it should be built.” 
Think you he would have been saved from the flood if 
he had taken this attitude? No, there is not one of us 
who will for a moment believe that Noah would have 
been redeemed from the flood if he had tried to quibble 
with the Lord. And yet some of us to-day follow 


116 


The Resurrection Gospel 


this very plan in dealing with the word of the Lord. 
Let us suppose, again, that Noah had taken still another 
attitude toward the word of the Lord, and had said: 
“Now, Lord, I do not see any use of building an ark 
to save all those animals. I think it will be sufficient 
if I construct a nice little canoe, and with that canoe 
I will save myself and those who belong to my family/’ 
What chance of salvation would he have had if he 
had spoken thus to the Lord? 

To sum up the case, the faith of Noah was a living, 
saving faith because it was a faith plus obedience. It 
was faith plus an ark. Have I stated it correctly? 
Better, perhaps, faith big enough and broad enough 
and high enough to become an ark. Noah believed in 
God enough that when the Lord said a flood was 
coming, Noah never for a moment questioned the fact, 
but, in obedience to the command of the Lord, he went 
right out and began building on his ark. Not only 
did he build it, but he made it according to the plan 
that God had given. He used the exact kind of 
material that the Lord demanded; he made it the same 
length and the same height. The whole matter may 
be summed up in the simple words of the inspired 
writer: “By faith he obeyed / 9 And it is ever the 
man who “by faith obeys” who is saved. 

May I use my imagination just now? I want to 
imagine that Noah did not build that ark all by him¬ 
self. I think he must have hired some fellows for two 
or three dollars per day to assist him in the assembling 
of the materials and the actual construction of the ark. 
Now, they did not believe that the flood was coming. 
They made fun of Noah and said: “Why, the poor old 
fool, there never has been such a flood, and there never 


Saving Faith 


117 


will be one like this of which he talks. But he is 
paying good wages and we are willing to accept that.” 
They made fun of the poor old servant of the Lord, 
but Noah went right on building the ark. When at 
last the roar of the rushing waters was heard, and 
men and animals were running in terror for their 
lives, these fellows were not saved. And why not? 
Because they had an ark minus faith. No man is to 
be saved in his own little canoe of morality, but only 
in the great ark of safety, the church of the living God. 

Time does not permit us to consider all the splendid 
illustrations of living faith as they are given in the 
New Testament. Read carefully the seventh chapter of 
Acts of Apostles or the eleventh chapter of the Hebrew 
letter and the illustrations of the mighty men and 
women of faith in the Old Testament days who will 
never be forgotten. 

An old negro was one time asked by his master, 
“Rastus, can you define for me living faith?” “Yas, 
sah,” replied Rastus. “Marse Henry, you see dat 
stone wall ovah there? Well, sah, now, suppose dat 
dat wall am eight feet thick and the Lawd says unto 
me, ‘Rastus, jump through dat wall!’ If Ah have 
livin’ faith, hit’s mah business to jump and de Lawd’s 
business to make de hole.” Ah! but he did define it. 
Could there be a clearer definition than this? If he 
had faith in the Lord, it was his business to do what 
the Lord commanded him to do and to trust the Lord 
to do the thing which he (Rastus) could not do. The 
trouble with too many of us now is that we want to 
live by sight and not by faith. We say if we knew we 
could hold out, we would surrender our lives to the 
Christ. If we were positive that we could live the 


118 


The Resurrection Gospel 


Christian life in the ideal manner, we would come. 
If we could see all the way, then would we try it. 
But this is not faith. When we start in serving Christ 
we do not know that we are going to make good. We 
may fail; if we trust in our own strength alone, we 
are sure to fail. But if we begin with faith that all 
will be well, and that the Master will lead us along 
the way, this faith will bring us at last unto victory. 

One time, on a big lake in Scotland, there were two 
men in a small boat. One was an expert oarsman, the 
other knew nothing at all about rowing. Said the latter 
to the former: “Please teach me to row.” “Cer¬ 
tainly,” was the reply; “pick up your oars.” The 
pupil picked up the oars and started to pull with all 
his might on the left oar. The boat started, but it 
went round and round in a circle. “Ah!” said the 
learner, “I have made a mistake.” He then began to 
pull with all his might on the right oar. Again the 
boat started, but, as before, it went round and round 
in a circle, in the opposite direction. Then said the 
teacher unto him: “Use both of your oars together.” 
After practice, the boat was soon speeding across the 
lake. Then said the teacher: “Oar No. 1 was faith— 
using it alone, you make no progress; oar No. 2 repre¬ 
sents works or obedience—using it alone, you make no 
progress; but when you use them together, then it is 
that you learn the lesson that they can not be 
divorced if you would make progress.” 

And so it is with living, saving faith. It is that 
faith deep enough, high enough, broad enough, to 
prompt a man to do whatever the Master requires of 
him, no matter where the path may lead him. It has 
ever been faith plus obedience which makes faith in 


Saving Faith 


119 


reality a living, saving power in the life. Whenever 
saving faith is mentioned in the New Testament, obedi¬ 
ence is always linked with it. The case of Abraham is 
significant, “By faith Abraham, when he was called, 
obeyed” (Heb. 11:8). The same thing is affirmed of 
Noah, for the writer says of him: “By faith Noah pre¬ 
pared an ark.” Faith always manifests itself in doing 
that which the Lord has commanded. In the case of 
the Samaritans it is said: “But when they believed 
Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom 
of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were bap¬ 
tized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12). Their faith 
came forth in obedience to the Lord Jesus. The same 
great truth is affirmed of the Corinthians: “And 
Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the 
Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians 
hearing believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8). 

There is one conversion in the Book of Acts which 
has caused many to be puzzled. It is the case of the 
jailor of Philippi. In his terror as he prostrates him¬ 
self before Paul and Silas, he cries aloud: “Sirs, what 
must I do to be saved?” He receives at once the 
answer: “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt 
be saved, thou and thy house” (Acts 16:30, 31). Is 
this not sufficient to show us that nothing was required 
of the lost in New Testament times save that they 
believe on the Lord ? Is this not enough to forever sub¬ 
stantiate the theory of salvation by faith alone? But 
we must remember to note the context. What did this 
mean to the jailor? We can tell what faith meant to 
him by what it produced in his conduct. One needs 
only to read a little further in the text to have the 
whole matter unfolded in the usual clear and beauti- 


120 


The Resurrection Gospel 


ful manner so characteristic of all the New Testa¬ 
ment writings. “And they spake the word of the 
Lord unto him, with all that were in his house. And 
he took them the same hour of the night, and washed 
their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, im¬ 
mediately 7 7 (Acts 16:32, 33). How much we are told 
in these brief verses. What a marvelous transforma¬ 
tion has been wrought here in the darkness of the 
night. From a sordid, selfish man of the world the 
jailor is translated into a kingdom of wonder and 
delight of which he had not even dreamed up to this 
time. He is told to believe, and then, in order that 
that faith may come into his heart, he hears the life- 
giving word of God. And what happens when he 
does believe? Why, he washes their stripes; he who 
has been their enemy now becomes their friend and 
ministers unto them in the new love which, with the 
faith in the glorious message, has come surging into 
his heart. And more: the same hour of the night, in 
the likeness of the burial of his now glorified Lord, he 
goes down into the waters of obedience, and with the 
glory of a new hope shining in his soul arises into a 
transformed life in Him. In a word, what we have 
found in every other case we find here also. Saving 
faith in the case of the jailor was that belief in Jesus 
as Lord so powerful and deep that it prompted him 
without hesitancy to do what the Lord had commanded 
him to do. 

James has forever settled the matter of the relation 
of faith to works when he writes: “For as the body 
apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from 
works is dead 77 (Jas. 2:26). This is the conclusion of 
the whole chapter in which he has been discussing this 


Saving Faith 


121 


very relation. In a word, there can be no faith at all 
apart from works, for a dead faith has never saved a 
soul. The writer of the Hebrew letter speaks clearly 
in the same vein: “He became unto all them that 
obey him the author of eternal salvation’’ (Heb. 5:9). 

And this is the end of the whole matter. We may 
talk all we please about our faith in the Christ and 
our love for the church, His mystic body on the earth. 
We may tell how dear to us is that sacred record of 
His life among men, and how determined we are ever 
to defend it before the world. But, after all, there is 
only one way to manifest to God and men the faith in 
our hearts, and that is, that we shall do whatever He 
has required of us in love and gladness. This applies 
not alone to the one who is an alien from God, and 
who has never experienced the redeeming power which 
comes through knowing Him. It applies with equal 
force to that one who is already a professed follower 
of the Savior. Faith without works is dead indeed, 
and profession without works is surely as dead. Men 
will know that we are His disciples only as we show 
forth that life which He lived, only as we reflect in 
our words and deeds the love wherewith He hath 
loved us. 

And thus may we plead with you this day that 
no longer your faith be quiescent, but that this very 
hour you shall come forth into the life of obedience 
which alone can make your faith a saving power to 
redeem you from all sin. 


V. 

THE PHILOSOPHY OF REPENTANCE 

Text. —“Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins 
may be blotted out, so that there may come seasons of refreshing 
from the presence of the Lord. ”—Acts 3: 19. 

T HERE is no doctrine which is so sadly needed to¬ 
day as the one which we have for our considera¬ 
tion in this message. If our Lord were here now, I 
believe that He would stress this teaching almost more 
than any other, for surely we need it in the morally 
lax age which is ours. In His own ministry Jesus, 
revolting in heart at the awful condition of His day, 
stung His hearers to their very souls with the words: 
“Except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish” 
(Luke 13:3). These would be His words now if He 
were here among us in the awful wickedness of our 
time. We need a John the Baptist with lion heart to 
thunder against the iniquities of our world. 

I. Let Us First of All Direct Our Attention to the 
Fact that There Are Many Erroneous Ideas 
Regarding the Nature of Repentance. 

1 . Conviction is not repentance. 

A man may be convicted of the fact that before 
God he is an awful sinner, and yet never repent and 
turn to the Lord at all. I have seen hundreds of men 
whose white faces and quivering lips told of deep con- 
122 


The Philosophy of Bepentmce 123 

viction in their hearts, and yet many of them never 
repented. There is not a bit of doubt in my own mind 
but that Agrippa was convicted by the terrific message 
of Paul. True, he may have tried to hide his real heart 
condition under the semi-ironical statement, “With 
but little persuasion thou wouldst fain make me a Chris¬ 
tian/’ but deep down in the heart of him Agrippa 
knew that Paul was speaking the truth. He was con¬ 
victed, but he did not repent. Conviction is the con¬ 
sciousness of the fact that we are sinners. To be con¬ 
victed means that one has become a convict, that one 
has been tied to a certain position; and in this case 
it means that he has become a convict and has realiza¬ 
tion of the fact that he is a sinner. In itself alone it 
does not and can not constitute repentance. 

2. Fear is not repentance. 

Many there are who, when the consciousness of sin 
in all its exceeding sinfulness dawns upon them, are 
filled with fear. And when one thinks of how terri¬ 
ble sin is in the sight of God, of the inwardness of its 
nature and the awful consequences which always fol¬ 
low it, well may he be filled with wholesome fear. 
Sin means but one thing, and that is death. I do not 
wonder, therefore, that when it is really made plain 
to a man what is the end of the path in which he is 
walking he is filled with terrible fear. I have seen men, 
even in this self-controlled age of ours, tremble with 
fear as they thought of their sins. But this fear alone 
does not constitute a repentance. The Philippian 
jailor, when he came prostrating himself before Paul 
and Silas in the prison in Philippi, was filled with 
fear. But that fear in itself was not a repentance. 
While it eventually did lead him to hear the gospel 


124 


The Resurrection Gospel 


and to comply with its conditions, yet alone it was not 
repentance at all. After the sledge-hammer sermon of 
Paul, Felix was terrified. Shaking with an uncontroll¬ 
able fear, he sends Paul away, promising that at some 
other time he would hear the truth once more, but 
Felix never repented. He was filled with fear, but it 
was only fear; it did not lead him to a turning to God. 

3. Sorrow for sin is not repentance. 

When real conviction comes to the soul, it often 
brings with it a great sorrow. But sorrow alone is not 
repentance. Judas is surely the classic illustration of 
this fact. He was filled with sorrow when it dawned 
upon him that he was responsible for the murder of 
the Lord Jesus Christ. Remorse cut into his heart 
with the awful realization that he was the murderer 
of his gracious Master. But he did not repent. A 
broken body at the foot of the cliff tells the rest of 
the story. One may be filled with sorrow for his sins, 
he may shed tears enough to float a superdreadnaught, 
but this does not for a moment indicate that he has 
repented. There is a vast difference between the godly 
sorrow which works repentance and the sorrow which 
Paul calls “the sorrow of the world.” The sorrow of 
the world is the sorrow that comes to the sinner when 
he is caught in his sins. This type of sorrow never 
leads a man to repent. 

II. Let Us Consider a Positive Definition of 
Repentance. 

1. The meaning of the Greek term ‘ ‘ nuetanoio* 9 gives 
us the fundamental idea of repentance. 

Literally translated, this Greek word means “a 
change of mind” or “a change of will.” Could a 


The Philosophy of Repentance 125 

better definition of repentance be given than this? 
The man who has repented is one who has had his 
mind changed in regard to sin; he is one who has a 
transformed will. To repent means “to get a new 
mind. ’’ Instead of the old mind of sin, we are to 
have a new mind; we are to “let the mind of Christ 
dwell in us.” The mind is the source of all our 
actions. It is the storehouse of our motives. It is 
truly the fountain of the will. Prof. William James 
said that “the group of ideas to which a man devotes 
himself, and from which he works habitually, not 
spasmodically, is the most important fact about him.” 
George Bernard Shaw says that “what a man believes 
may be ascertained, not from his creed, but from the 
assumptions on which he habitually acts.” If a man is 
to be a new man in Christ Jesus, he must have a new 
mind; he must be indeed a turned-about man. In this 
connection I can not refrain from quoting from that 
excellent little work of President Davis, “Evangelistic 
Preaching.” Quoting the little book, “Into His Like¬ 
ness,” by G. H. C. MacGregor, he says: “He describes 
the legal call to repentance in the familiar words, ‘ Amend 
your ways and your doings.’ This is the command of 
the law. But there is a deeper call than this which is 
the call of the New Testament. It was uttered first in 
its fullness when our Lord, taking up the Baptist’s 
work, proclaimed: ‘The kingdom of God is at hand; 
repent ye, and believe the gospel.’ It concerns itself 
with the inner thoughts and feelings. It strikes at the 
life ere it manifests itself in action. It keeps close 
to the etymology of the Greek word. It cries not, 
‘Change your actions,’ but ‘change your minds/ It 
does not say, ‘Thou shalt not take the name of the 


126 


The Resurrection Gospel 


Lord thy God in vain; ’ it says, ‘ Thou shalt love the 
Lord thy God with all thy heart/ It does not say, 
‘Thou shalt not kill;’ it says, ‘Thou shalt love thy 
neighbor as thyself/ Its demand is not so much, ‘Do 
new deeds,’ as ‘Act from new principles/ I call it 
evangelical, because it springs out of that doctrine 
which is the foundation of all evangelical religion: 
‘Except a man be bom again, he cannot see the king¬ 
dom of God’ ”(p. 133). 

2. Let us attempt an illustration of the meaning of 
repentance. 

I have a bachelor friend of college days who lives at 
the present time in San Francisco. In those dear days 
of our association together he was always saying that 
when the happy time came that he should take unto 
himself a wife, he would have me come and say the 
words of the marriage ceremony, no matter where I 
might be. I made him the promise that I would come. 
Now, then, suppose that to-morrow morning I receive 
a telegram here in Long Beach that this friend of 
mine has found the right girl, and that the wedding 
will take place in San Francisco two days from this 
time. I ask Bro. George Taubman to preach for me 
for a couple of nights, and with great joy in my heart 
at the prospect of a very happy time and of a sub¬ 
stantial fee (for my friend is wealthy and has always 
promised that the fee would be a fat one), I go down 
to the station to-morrow morning and buy a ticket for 
San Francisco and get on the first train going south. 
I purchase a morning paper and have just seated 
myself comfortably in the Pullman to enjoy it, when 
suddenly the door is opened and a friend of mine 
enters the car. He greets me pleasantly: “Good 


The Philosophy of Pepeniance 127 

morning, Brother Kellems, where are you going this 
bright morning?” I return the greeting with pleasure, 
answering: “Well, sir, I am going to San Francisco 
this morning. An old college friend is to be married 
up there, ahd he has asked me to come and tie the knot 
for him, and I am on the way to-day to perform that 
happy service for him.” My friend in astonishment 
replies: “To San Francisco? Why, Brother Kellems, 
this train does not go to San Francisco at all. This 
train goes to San Diego, for it is going south.” Now, 
I have traveled over the world quite a bit, and it does 
not make me feel comfortable for even a good friend to 
tell me, although it be in polite language, that I do 
not know enough to get on the right train, especially if 
there is a wedding at the other end of the line. And 
so with considerable dignity I answer him. “My 
friend, I have been to San Francisco a great many 
times, and I know just where I am going this trip. 
There is no doubt about the matter at all, I am on the 
right train.” He leaves me then, reaffirming the state¬ 
ment just made that the train is going south and that 
I am going right in the opposite direction from San 
Francisco. Now, when I boarded that train there was 
no doubt in my mind at all. I was absolutely com¬ 
placent, for I was sure that I was right. But the 
statement of the friend has made me a little bit 
uneasy; a doubt has entered my mind, a fear that, 
after all, I might be mistaken. After awhile the con¬ 
ductor comes through the car with the proverbial 
“Tickets, please,” and I hand him my ticket. He looks 
at the ticket and then he looks at me and then at the 
ticket again, and then he lets out a roar of surprise: 
“Where do you think you are going?” “Well, I am 


128 


The Resurrection Gospel 


going to San Francisco; isn’t that what my ticket 
says?” “Yes, that is what your ticket says,” replies 
the now irate conductor, “and it seems to me, my 
friend, that you are going a very roundabout way to 
get to San Francisco, for this train is going south 
toward San Diego, and at sixty miles an hour. Unless 
you do some hurrying, you will soon be a thousand 
miles from that wedding and you will never in the 
world get there in time.” Now, friends, there is no 
use in sassing a conductor. He knows where the train 
is going, for that is his business. The fact of the mat¬ 
ter is that I am wrong, I am on the wrong train, and 
every whirl of the wheels is taking me farther and 
farther from the wedding, and that fat fee is taking 
wings to fly forever from my grasp. In a word, I am 
convicted. That fear which came into my heart at 
the statement of the friend who first told me that I 
was on the wrong train has now become a certainty, 
and with that certainty or conviction has come some¬ 
thing else— sorrow. Would you not be filled with sor¬ 
row if you had made such an awful mistake? What 
would my friends say if they knew about it? And then 
to think that I have missed the wedding, that I have 
disappointed an old friend after faithfully promising 
to be with him at the happy time, and, worst of all, 
that I have missed the big fee. Why, a situation of 
this kind would certainly be enough to fill a man with 
deepest sorrow. I might feel so bad about it that I 
could even squeeze out a few tears, but remember that 
all the time the train is speeding on toward San Diego 
and I am constantly getting farther and farther away 
from my destination. Here I am filled with conviction 
and sorrow, but I have not as yet repented. I have 


The Philosophy of Repentance 129 

not repented until I pull the bell-cord and call to that 
conductor to stop the train and put me off. Perhaps 
I can catch a fast train to the north and still get there 
in time for the wedding. So I call the conductor and 
tell him to stop the train and let me get off. Now, the 
very moment that I change my mind regarding the 
whole matter, that moment I have repented. My fear 
and conviction and sorrow led me to repentance; the 
fact that I get off the train and get on another one 
going north is the result of repentance; the re¬ 
pentance itself was the change of motive or will regard¬ 
ing my destination. 

Sam Jones was one of the greatest preachers that 
this world has ever known. He used to illustrate 
repentance in the following manner. He would walk 
across the platform, saying: “I am on my way to hell, 
I am on my way to hell. ,, Then, suddenly turning, 
he would say as he walked in the opposite direction: 
“I am on my way to heaven, I am on my way to 
heaven. Now, the fact that I am on my way to 
heaven is a repentance. ’ 9 No, Sam Jones was mistaken, 
for the repentance occurred when he decided to turn 
around and go in the right direction. 

The greatest illustration of the nature of repentance 
is found in the second chapter of Acts of Apostles. A 
great multitude had assembled in Jerusalem, and 
that multitude was listening to one of the Lord’s 
greatest and most powerful messengers. At first, the 
people, as they came together attracted by the loud 
speaking in tongues on the part of the apostles, were 
inclined to scoff and sneer at the disciples of the Lord. 
They accused them of being filled with new wine. 
But gradually, as the sermon of Peter progressed in its 


130 


The Resurrection Gospel 


argument, there came a change in the audience. These 
people knew Jesus Christ. They had heard Him 
speak His wonderful words; they had watched Him 
as He healed the sick, as He gave sight to the blind, 
as He gave the power to walk unto the lame, as He 
healed the leper and as He raised the dead. These 
are the same people who had preceded Him into the 
city of Jerusalem, acclaiming Him as a king, throwing 
their garments in His path and singing in ecstatic 
praise: “Hosanna to the son of David.” These are 
they who had turned against Him as the days went by, 
until they could stand at the foot of the cross, reviling 
Him and cursing Him and spitting upon Him. These 
are the same people who had turned sick with horror as 
the great darkness overspread the earth, and the roar 
and crash of the earthquake sent terror to their very 
souls and caused them to flee to the city, beating their 
breasts and praying for help from Jehovah. They 
knew Jesus Christ. And what did they believe about 
Him? They believed that He had died upon the cross, 
and that His body has been buried in the new tomb 
of Joseph of Arimath^ea. They also believed the words 
told by the Roman guard that the disciples came by 
night and stole the body away while they were sleep¬ 
ing. Peter had one task in his sermon, and he met 
it as only an inspired man and one of his nature 
can meet it. 

A study of the sermon shows that there is one great 
and outstanding point in it: that Jesus was raised from 
the dead by the power of God. And with what assur¬ 
ance did Peter preach it. There was no doubt in his 
mind. In the rush of words, in the tremendous con¬ 
viction which inspired him, he swept on to a mighty 


The Philosophy of Repentance 131 

victory. The crowd at first greeted his words with 
jeers and ribald laughter. Mockingly they said one to 
another: “They are filled with new wine.” But as the 
sermon progressed, there came gradually a subtle 
change in the attitude of the audience. One man 
turned to his neighbor with a puzzled look in which 
fear is mingled: “Do you hear what he says, that our 
Messiah is not to be a king of temporal power, but that 
He has already come and that we, not knowing Him, 
have nailed Him to a cross? Impossible! Our King 
crucified like a common criminal! Why, such a posi¬ 
tion as this is utterly absurd. ’’ But as Peter continued 
with his mighty sermon, sweeping everything before 
him, that fear which was so manifest in the blanched 
faces of hundreds became a certainty. They were 
convicted, it is true; they had killed their own Prince, 
toward whose coming they had been looking with such 
expectation through the long years. Murderers! and, 
worse still, murderers of the very Lord whom they 
so ardently desired to serve. Can we realize the awful 
horror, the fearful remorse, which such a realization 
as this would bring to them ? Suddenly from the 
stricken audience there rises a great, terrible cry of 
bitterest agony, the cry of souls damned for an endless 
eternity: “Brethren, what shall we do?” And what is 
Peter’s answer? They were filled with fear and re¬ 
morse and a sorrow indescribable. Is this not enough? 
Need they do aught else? Had they not repented when 
thus in horror and agony they cried out to the apostles ? 
Could they possibly have done anything more? Yes, 
for Peter replied even after all this: “Repent ye, and 
be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
Christ for the remission of your sins; and ye shall 


132 


The Resurrection Gospel 


receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” His answer was: 
“Change your minds, and turn to God in obedience to 
his Son whom ye have with wicked hands crucified.” 
Although they were filled with fear and conviction 
and sorrow, yet they had not repented until they had 
changed their minds in regard to sin and had turned 
to the Lord, who alone could cleanse them from their 
awful guilt. 

3. From the illustrations given and the meaning of 
the original terms as well as from the many statements 
of Scripture , the true meaning of repentance is clearly 
manifest. 

Repentance is an act of the mind or of the will by 
which the sinner decides to forsake his sins and turn 
to the Lord, to serve Him out of a pure heart through¬ 
out the rest of his days. Fear and conviction and sor¬ 
row lead one to repentance; they are the precursors 
of repentance; the changed life is the result of re¬ 
pentance; the act itself is a change of will. This is 
certainly the meaning of the statement of the text: 
“Repent ye, therefore, and turn again, that your sins 
may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of 
refreshing from the presence of the Lord” (Acts 3: 
19). The same meaning is emphasized in the words of 
Paul when describing his vision on the way to Damas¬ 
cus: “Wherefore, 0 king Agrippa, I was not diso¬ 
bedient unto the heavenly vision: but declared both 
to them of Damascus first, and at Jerusalem, and 
throughout all the country of Judaea, and also to the 
Gentiles, that they should repent [change their minds] 
and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance” 
(Acts 26:19, 20). A change of mind which brings 
about a turning to God was the meaning of the state- 


The Philosophy of Repentance 133 

ment of Paul to the Corinthians when he writes: “For 
godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation, a re¬ 
pentance which bringeth no regret: but the sorrow of 
the world worketh death” (2 Cor. 7:10). How beauti¬ 
ful are the words of the old prophet when he exhorts 
the wandering one, and how expressive of the true 
meaning of repentance: “Let the wicked forsake his 
way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let 
him return unto Jehovah, and he will have mercy 
upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly 
pardon” (Isa. 55:7). 

III. There Are Some Tremendous Reasons Why a 
Man Should Repent. 

1. Sorrow for sin should lead us to repentance. 

A great divine recently said that sin, to be really 
hated, must only be seen in its true nature. The 
hatred for sin that comes into the soul should cer¬ 
tainly lead a man to turn to the Lord with contrite 
heart. If I knew one thing, I could turn the world 
upside down. If I knew how to make men feel a real 
sorrow for sin, I could lead them to the cross by the 
thousands. Paul speaks to the Corinthians of sorrow 
for sin: “For though I made you sorry with my epis¬ 
tle, I do not regret it: though I did regret it (for I see 
that the epistle made you sorry, though but for a sea¬ 
son), I now rejoice, not that I made you sorry, but 
that ye were made sorry unto repentance; for ye were 
made sorry after a godly sort, that ye might suffer loss 
by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repen¬ 
tance unto salvation, a repentance which bringeth no 
regret: but the sorrow of the world worketh death” 
(1 Cor. 7:8-11). And this is the sorrow we need; 


134 


The Resurrection Gospel 


not the sorrow of the world, the sorrow which comes 
into the heart when we are found out in our sins, but 
the sorrow born of hatred for our unrighteousness, 
which causes us to yearn after a pure and godly life 
and to turn from that which is wrong. The very sin¬ 
fulness of sin, the hideousness of being a rebel in the 
sight of God, the anguish at the realization that the 
sin is ours, that it belongs to us and that we are re¬ 
sponsible for it, surely, surely, this should lead a man 
to repentance. While, as we have already discovered 
in this message, sorrow for sin is not in itself repen¬ 
tance, yet it will lead to a repentance. So terrible is 
sin that it caused all the agony of Gethsemane, all the 
tears and sweat and blood of Calvary. How clearly 
Jesus states it when, in the commission as recorded by 
Luke, He says: “Thus it is written, that the Christ 
should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third 
day; and that repentance and remission of sins should 
be preached in his name unto all the nations, begin¬ 
ning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46, 47). The con¬ 
templation of what our sins have caused in suffering 
and death should lead us through the valley of sorrow 
to the blessed plains of peace, the land of repentance. 

2. The impending judgment should lead us to repen¬ 
tance. 

We do not think of judgment much these days. It 
has been rather a popular thing to preach as little as 
possible on the great warnings of the gospel. With 
the decline in such preaching there has been a corre¬ 
sponding decline in the sense of the exceeding sinful¬ 
ness of sin among the people of our day. But the 
Bible is not silent on the great after-things. There 
is to be a judgment, and it is to be a terrible time for 


The Philosophy of Repentance 135 

the sinner. The language used in describing it is 
absolutely unmistakable. Paul, in that very climax 
of his oratorical and persuasive efforts, affirms that 
the judgment is coming, and exhorts men to repent in 
view of its advent. On the summit of Mars’ Hill, 
with a sneering crowd of philosophers and near-philoso¬ 
phers before him, he says: “The times of ignorance 
therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth 
men that they should all everywhere repent: inasmuch 
as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the 
world in righteousness by the man whom he hath 
ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all 
men, in that he hath raised him from the dead” (Acts 
17: 30, 31). His argument, in a word, is that God has 
appointed a day of judgment and that He has assured 
men that it is coming, and that Jesus Christ, who 
pleads with men as Lord and Savior, will be the judge. 
The badge of His authority as judge is the fact that 
God has raised Him from the dead. Therefore the 
conclusion is that all men should repent in view of the 
fact that some day they are to stand before the great 
judgment throne and answer for the deeds done in the 
body. When I think of the terrors of that day, my 
brother, I tremble for the sinner. It is going to be a 
hard thing for the righteous to be saved, and if it is 
a hard thing for the man who has surrendered himself 
to the Lord of hosts to enter into the city of God, 
“where shall the sinner and the ungodly appear?” I 
tell you it is time you were preparing for the judg¬ 
ment-day, for as surely as we live there is to be a time 
when men will be placed in their proper relationships 
in the future life, and that time in the New Testament 
is called the judgment. Some there are who can 


136 


The Resurrection Gospel 


face the future calmly, but a calm of this kind is bom 
of ignorance. Any man who knows what the future 
holds for the unrepentant can not be indifferent and 
calm. It is enough to fill one’s soul with terror. 

3. The mighty works of Christ should cause va to 
repent. 

We are condemned every day by the works of the 
Lord. We can not be neutral about them. If they do 
not lead us to give ourselves to Him, they bring to us 
eternal condemnation. Jesus Himself, on one occasion 
bitterly disappointed at the indifference and negligence 
of those who heard Him and yet refused to obey, said: 
“Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! 
for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and 
Sidon, which were done in you, they would have re¬ 
pented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But 
it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the 
judgment than for you” (Luke 10:13, 14). In the 
next chapter of the same book our Lord again repeats 
His warning: “The queen of the south shall rise up in 
the judgment with the men of this generation, and 
shall condemn them: for she came from the ends of 
the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, 
a greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineveh 
shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, 
and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preach¬ 
ing of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is 
here” (Luke 11:31, 32). The mighty works of 
Christ! The mighty works in the New Testament! Oh, 
how convincing they are! His life of love to the sons 
of men! His works of kindness and compassion! His 
death in sorrow on the cross of Calvary for the re¬ 
mission of the sins of the world! His burial in the 


The Philosophy of Repentance 137 

tomb and His glorious resurrection from the dead the 
third day! His ascension to the realms of the excellent 
glory—these, and the multitude of others in the sacred 
volume, will condemn you, my brother, at the judg¬ 
ment-day. They surely should lead you to fall at the 
foot of the cross and give your heart, your life, your 
all, to Him who has given so much for you. And are 
these all the mighty works of the King? Did His 
miracles cease with the end of the New Testament? 
Are there others which will on that last day stand 
before us like haunting spirits? Ah, yes! And how 
numerous they are! His mighty works in the world 
now, those which we can see around us every day; His 
work of regeneration, His work of making the world 
more like a real dwelling-place for one who is made in 
the image and likeness of the eternal God. And how 
sad is the situation of the man who can not see these 
mighty works, or who, worse than that, will not see 
them. I am fearful that the last statement is the 
real condition; they do not want to see these mighty 
works, knowing as they do that condemnation comes 
because they have not done His will. 

4. The call of Christ should lead us to repentance . 

Jesus came to call the man who is a sinner. I once 
talked with a man who said: “I would like to come to 
the Lord, but I am unworthy; I am too great a sin¬ 
ner. 99 Luke records the words of Jesus when he said: 
“I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to 
repentance” (Luke 5:32). The call of the King to 
a higher and nobler life, to a life of service and happi¬ 
ness, surely this call should lead a man to repentance. 
It is a heroic thing, this call of Christ. He wants men 
to live the life which will mean most to them in real 


138 The Resurrection Gospel 

joy because it shall be a life dedicated to the service 
of others. 

5. The goodness of God should lead us to repentance. 

God has been good to men. He has been good to 
you, my brother, even though at times you may have 
felt that He has forsaken you. Paul describes it in 
words that are sweet indeed: “Or despisest thou the 
riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffer- 
ing, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth 
thee to repentance V ’ (Rom. 2:4). God wants us to 
be saved. There is nothing which can bring such sor¬ 
row to the heart of the great, loving Father as that 
one of those whom He loves should persist in sin and 
be lost. Peter tells us about it when he says: “The 
Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count 
slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing 
that any should perish, but that all should come to 
repentance’’ (2 Pet. 3:9). 

There are those who have had the wonderful privi¬ 
lege of being reared in a Christian home where the 
kind and holy influences of Christian parents have 
been cast about them. When they came to maturity, 
they had the joy of being married to Christian wives, 
and as the children came they, too, had surrendered 
to the Lord. And yet, these same men have often gone 
on refusing the love and mercy of the Lord of hosts. 
How good God has been to you! Can not the senti¬ 
ment of gratitude in your hearts bring you to the 
place where you will make a surrender to Him who 
loved you and gave Himself up for you? When one 
goes on refusing the love of the Father; neglecting his 
duty to the Christ; allowing his loved ones to bear all 
the responsibility of doing the praying and teaching 


The Philosophy of Repentcmce 139 

and living for the King—is he not thereby despising 
the love of God which was so freely manifested for 
him? Why not this very hour forsake your sins and 
turn to the Lord, making your loved ones to rejoice, 
bringing happiness to all the expectant hosts of 
heaven by your surrender, and acknowledging the 
love and mercy of God by acting the part of one 
who has the courage to do the right, no matter 
what may prevail ? Repent this day and turn to 
the King,- doing works worthy of repentance. 


VI. 

THE GOOD CONFESSION 

Text. —“Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on the life 
eternal, whereunto thou wast called, and didst confess the good 
confession in the sight of many witnesses. ”—1 Tim. 6: 12. 

Introduction. 

T HE good confession is an act peculiar to the Chris¬ 
tian Church of to-day. No other people lay such 
stress upon it. In every service where a gospel sermon 
is preached an invitation song is sung, and men and 
women are invited to make the good confession of 
Christ as Lord and King. In every evangelistic meet¬ 
ing great emphasis is placed upon this act as an evi¬ 
dence of the conversion of the sinner from the error 
of his ways and of his acceptance of the Lordship 
of Jesus in his life. 

As a people we are builded upon the truth of the 
good confession as the great foundation, and it is well 
that we understand just what it means in the plan of 
salvation. That enough emphasis has not been given 
to it by the majority of the denominations is evident 
to any who have attended, not only their evangelistic 
efforts, but their regular services as well. 

From the plain teaching of the New Testament it 
appears that this act is one of the definite steps in 
accepting Christ. Let us therefore consider it with 
care. 

140 


The Good Confession 


141 


ARGUMENT. 

I. The Wonderful Meaning of the Good Confession. 

1. It is a confession of our faith in the most stu¬ 
pendous truth in the universe of God. 

That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, 
and that God, the creator of all the wonderful uni¬ 
verse, the maker of heaven and earth, actually came to 
earth and dwelt here in the person of Jesus, that He 
might in an intelligible language bring to men His 
message of divine salvation, is the most stupendous and 
amazing truth in all the great universe of our Father. 
No more tremendous truth than this can ever enter 
into the mind of man. No man can truly understand 
it in all its meaning and significance. No mind is 
great enough to fully comprehend it. We can only 
stand amazed, and with the apostle say: “And without 
controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who 
was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, 
seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on 
in the world, received up in glory ’ 9 (1 Tim. 3:16). 
The truth of this confession is the gospel in epitome. 
It has well been called the keystone of the arch, for so 
it is. 

2. The good confession is a public acknowledgment 
that the sinner has accepted Jesus Christ as Prophet, 
Priest and King. 

(1) The threefold acceptance is expressed in the 
words of the confession itself. “I believe with all my 
heart that Jesus is the Christos [the Christ], the 
anointed prophet or teacher of God.” When I make 
such a confession as this, it is the same as to say that 
I have accepted Jesus as the teacher of my life, that 


142 The Resurrection Gospel 

from now on His word shall be the guide of my path, 
that in all things I will try to pattern my life after 
His teachings. What a glorious confession it is, for 
in it I announce to the world my determination to 
take a new guide for my life. “I believe that Jesus 
is the Christ, the Son of the living God. ” When I 
confess Him as the Son of the living God, I am 
acknowledging Him as the Lord of my life. Jesus 
is a King, and when I accept Him I must accept Him 
as King. By virtue of my accepting Him as Teacher 
and King, at the same time I have accepted Him as 
my Savior or ‘‘sin-bearer,” for Savior really means 
“sin-bearer.” In a word, then, I accept Him as my 
Priest, to make for me the sacrifice for my sins to God. 

(2) It should be solemnly borne in mind that Jesus 
can not be Teacher and Priest to any man unless He 
is to that man, Lord and King. Our Lord will have 
nothing but a whole-hearted surrender to His Lord- 
ship. There is no salvation promised unless this condi¬ 
tion is met absolutely. The primary meaning of 
homolagro is “to say after.” When we make the good 
confession, we “say after” the Father who has made 
it before us, and all the millions of others who have 
acknowleged Jesus as Prophet, Priest and King. The 
word was also used many times in a military sense, 
and when thus used had the meaning of “unconditional 
surrender.” When we make the good confession, we 
acknowledge that we have made an unconditional sur¬ 
render to the authority of Jesus Christ; that we have 
accepted Him indeed as Lord and King. And Jesus 
will be satisfied with nothing less than this. The burn¬ 
ing words of Matthew’s Gospel are unmistakable in 
their meaning: “Not every one that saith unto me, 


The Good Confession 


143 


Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; 
but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in 
heaven” (Matt. 7:21). The necessity of bowing to 
the absolute authority of the Christ as Lord is also 
emphasized by the writer of the Hebrew letter when 
he says: “And having been made perfect, he became 
unto all them that obey him the author of eternal 
salvation” (Heb. 5:9). One reason to-day why many 
do not become Christians is to be found in the very 
fact which we have been considering. They do not 
want to bow to the authority of the Lord. Absolute 
and whole-hearted obedience to Christ as Lord is 
necessary if we would have Him as Prophet and 
Savior. 

3. The good confession is a public subscription to 
the creed of the New Testament church. 

(1) The truth of this confession is the creed of the 
church founded by the Lord Jesus. We frequently 
hear members of the church of Christ to-day say that 
the Bible is our creed. The Bible is not our creed. 
No book is the creed of the New Testament church, 
nor is there any possible way by which a book of any 
kind could be the divine creed. Christ Jesus Himself, 
as He is revealed in the New Testament as Prophet, 
Priest and King, is the creed of the church which He 
founded, and which He purchased with His own pre¬ 
cious blood. The faith upon which my salvation is 
based, therefore, is not in a book, but in a crucified, 
but gloriously resurrected, Redeemer, a living Savior 
who is revealed to me through that book which is His 
word. 

(2) Jesus Christ made the wonderful truth of the 
good confession the mighty rock foundation of His 


144 


The Resurrection Gospel 


church. In that memorable conversation with His 
disciples when He asked them, “Who do men say the 
Son of man is?” and Peter in his ever-impulsive way 
had given the enthusiastic answer, “Thou art the 
Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus said: 
“Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and 
blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father 
who is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, that thou 
art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; 
and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” 
(Matt. 16:13-18). The church of the Lord is builded 
upon a rock; not petros (masculine), a little stone or 
rock, but petra , a mighty Gibraltar, a tremendous, un- 
shakeable mountain of rock. Paul, in speaking of the 
foundation, tells us plainly that it is not Peter, the 
little rock, but that it is the great, immovable rock 
which is the same yesterday, to-day and forever, when 
he says: “For other foundation can no man lay than 
that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3: 
11). Peter himself speaks of the rock, and in his testi¬ 
mony is a denial that he was ever the rock which Jesus 
meant to be the foundation of His church when he 
says: “If ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious: 
unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of 
men, but with God elect, precious, ye also, as living 
stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy 
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable 
to God through Jesus Christ. Because it is contained 
in the scriptures, 

Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner-stone, elect, 
precious; 

And he that believeth on him shall not be put to 
shame. 


The Good Confession 


145 


For you therefore that believe is the preciousness: but 
for such as disbelieve, 

The stone which the builders rejected, 

The same was made the head of the corner; 
and, 

A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; 
for they stumble at the word, being disobedient: where- 
unto also they were appointed” (1 Pet. 2:3-8). Do 
these strong words of the apostle, who, as far as 
we know, never even saw Rome, sound like one who 
believed himself the rock upon which Jesus has built 
His church? Not for a moment, for Peter knew well 
that when, after the great confession, the Lord had 
given him that answer, the mighty rock was the King 
Himself. Many have been the storms which have beat 
with foam and thunder against the church of God. 
But amidst them all she has stood serene and confi¬ 
dent, for she is built upon a mighty mountain of rock 
which all the storms of earth or Hades can not move. 

(3) The subscription to the divine creed in the 
good confession makes a man a Christian, and a Chris¬ 
tian only. It is indeed a confession of faith, and not 
of opinions. We are not giving our opinions about 
some great theological doctrine or system of doctrines; 
but we are confessing our faith in a person, in the 
divine person, as our Lord and Redeemer. Such a 
faith in Christ only will make a man a Christian only. 
He will belong to Christ only, not to a sect or denomi¬ 
nation; for there is nothing in this confession which 
smacks of denominationalism or sectarianism. He will 
be just a follower of Christ Jesus. It always takes 
something more than that which Christ commanded 
to make a man a member of a division or party. 

10 


146 


The Resurrection Gospel 


II. The Solemn Dignity of the Good Confession. 

1. The good confession derives supreme dignity 
from the sublime truth to which it gives expression. 

Truly it is an act which should fill one with awe, 
to stand before his fellows and confess that he believes 
with all his heart that God was manifest in flesh and 
that He actually came to dwell among men in their 
sorrows and joys. It is ever a dignified thing to say 
great words, and certainly none greater could be 
uttered than those which give expression to the truth 
of the incarnation of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. 
There is no act of greater dignity than that of making 
the good confession. 

2. The good confession receives a wonderful dignity 
from the exalted character of those who have made it. 

God the Father made the good confession. As 
Jesus rose from the waters of baptism, from the cloven 
heaven streamed with dovelike radiance the Spirit of 
the living God, and the voice of the Father, like the 
voice of many waters, spake to the sensitive ear of 
John the Baptist in the words of approbation and con¬ 
fession: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
pleased’’ (Matt. 3:17). And yet again—on that won¬ 
derful day when in the dim light in which but faintly 
was reflected the gleam from Hermon’s eternal snows; 
when to the wondering gaze of the transfixed disciples 
Jesus appeared transfigured in gleaming white before 
them—the voice from the excellent glory once more 
uttered its great confession, “This is my beloved Son, 
in whom I am well pleased;” adding to the words 
which on the former occasion echoed from the flinty 
cliffs of Jordan the solemn command: “Hear ye him” 


The Good Confession 


147 


(Matt. 17:5). Does it not add sublime dignity to the 
good confession to know the Creator and Lord of the 
universe made it gladly? 

Christ Jesus Himself made the good confession. 
Before the high priest, when the sharp word of com¬ 
mand was given, “I adjure thee by the living God, 
that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son 
of God,” He gave the calm answer: “Thou hast said” 
(Matt. 26:63). Again, before Pilate, He confessed 
in the same words that He was the Christ and the King 
of the Jews. 

Peter the apostle made the good confession when, 
in an answer to the question of the Lord, “Who say 
ye that I am?” he confidently affirmed: “Thou art the 
Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). 

Stephen, the first great martyr of the church, made 
the good confession and died for making it. In the 
scathing sermon which he preached to the infuriated 
multitude, he again and again affirmed his faith in the 
Lordship of Jesus Christ. And how beautiful was his 
faith in death when, being filled with the Spirit of the 
living God, he “looked up stedfastly into heaven, and 
saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right 
hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens 
opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand 
of God” (Acts 7:55, 56). And when the cruel stones 
were crashing the life from the poor tortured body, he 
called upon the Lord in whom he so confidently believed 
and whose name he had so courageously confessed, 
saying: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). 
How proud and happy was Stephen to make the good 
confession of faith in his dear Master. And like Him 
whom he confessed, he nobly interceded for those who 


148 


The Resurrection Gospel 


were his murderers, saying, “Lord, lay not this sin 
to their charge,” and then he “fell asleep” (Acts 
7:60). 

Timothy made the good confession, and in the words 
of Paul, “in the sight of many witnesses.” There is 
also in this statement an intimation of the boldness of 
the faith which characterized these early witnesses. 
They would not hide their faith as though they had 
done that of which they should be ashamed, but with 
a great and “holy boldness’ they spake forth before 
the greatest possible concourse of people their undying 
faith in Christ Jesus as Lord and King, and their un¬ 
swerving loyalty to His holy cause. 

Millions of Christians have made the good con¬ 
fession. Unending volumes would not suffice to con¬ 
tain the names of all those immortals who have gladly 
confessed that they believed in the Lord as the Son 
of the living God and the Savior of the world, and 
who, because of that faith, have given their all of this 
world’s goods, yea, even to their lives, that His 
cause might not perish from the earth. Is it not a 
dignified thing that we do, then, when to-day we stand 
in the presence of our fellow-travelers to the judgment- 
bar of God and make this glorious confession? What 
wonderful company we are in when we, for the first 
time, in faith lisp the name of Jesus! 

It is a significant thing to remember that those who 
constitute the membership to-day of the churches of 
Christ, those who call themselves “Christians only,” 
have all made the good confession. This is not true 
of many of the denominational bodies of our day, for 
there are hundreds of the members of such bodies who 
have been received into the churches before they knew 


The Good Confession 


149 


anything about the matter at all. But it is true of 
the members of the churches of Christ that, before 
their baptism and reception thereupon into the mem¬ 
bership, they have all made the good confession. 

3. The dignity of the good confession is also mani¬ 
fest when we consider what it has cost those who have 
made it. 

Jesus made it; but He died for making it. Peter 
made it all of his life after Pentecost; but he was, 
according to tradition, crucified head down. It cost 
him his life. Stephen gave his life because he was 
willing boldly to tell the world of his faith. Paul 
and James and John, and all the rest of the martyrs, 
suffered untold agonies because they loved the great 
Lord of life and were not afraid to name His name 
before the world. I can not here refrain from quoting 
from that splendid and inspiring book of Sylvester 
Horne, “The Romance of Preaching,’’ as he eulogizes 
these first Christian martyrs: “There are no words in 
any language which can express how dear they held 
their faith and how cheap they held their lives. In 
all the instrumentalities on which we too often rely to 
win our victories they took no stock. They knew noth¬ 
ing of art, architecture or music; nor, for the most 
part, did they reck much of education. They met the 
mailed hand of Rome unarmed and defenseless. With 
no material weapon, no organized army, no display of 
force, they shook the mightiest of world empires till 
it trembled and tottered. From the handful of rec¬ 
reant apostles who, in His crisis, had failed their 
leader, sprang the invincible legion that did not know 
the meaning of fear, and that, to use the words of one 
of our own Puritan fathers in exile, ‘triumphed over 


150 


The Resurrection Gospel 


cruelty with courage, over persecution with patience 
and over death itself by dying/ Rome had conquered 
every race, and trampled upon every creed, only to be 
baffled by men whose bodies she could burn, but whose 
hate she could not provoke; nay, whose love she could 
not alienate. When the sands of the Coliseum were 
red with their blood, or when, in Nero’s gardens, con¬ 
verted into torches, they passed through smoke and 
flame to their rest, their message swept in triumph 
from convert to convert; while in the subterranean 
seclusion of the Catacombs, the martyr missionaries 
preached and prayed, and signed the galleries of Death 
with the symbols of eternal hope” (p. 90). What 
supreme dignity, therefore, does this good confession 
receive from the exalted character of those who have 
made it and from the terrible price they have paid 
in making it! 

III. The Scriptural Method of Making the Good 
Confession. 

1. It is to be made unth the mouth . 

The good confession is not to be made by signing a 
card or holding up the hand, but it is to be made in 
an open, straightforward manner with the mouth. In 
the before-quoted verse the apostle Paul makes this 
very clear when he says: * 4 Because if thou shalt con¬ 
fess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe 
in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou 
shalt be saved: for with the heart man believeth unto 
righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made 
unto salvation” (Rom. 10:9, 10). We are to come 
right out in the open and boldly declare our faith in 
the Son of God. Jesus will have no secret disciples. 


The Good Confession 


151 


Secret discipleship is akin to cowardice. We are to let 
the world know so that there can be no doubt about 
the matter that we accept Jesus as Lord and King. 

2. It is to be made publicly before as many wit¬ 
nesses as possible. 

Timothy made the good confession in “the sight of 
many witnesses.’ ’ The greater the number of witnesses 
to our confession, the better for us and for those who 
are influenced by our actions. Do not take the attitude 
which I have known men to take many times, as 
illustrated by the words of a young man who once 
said to mq: “Brother Kellems, I am coming, but I 
want to wait until there is a small crowd, and then I 
will come. I am naturally reticent and I do not like 
display.’’ Ah! but this attitude is entirely at variance 
with the whole spirit of the good confession. When 
we make this confession we are witnessing for Christ. 
It is a testimony; a testimony should be made so that 
all men may hear it. 

(1) Note the effect of such a public confession upon 
our own souls. To stand out bravely and tell of the 
faith in our hearts gives us the proper start in the 
Christian life. And there is everything in starting 
right. One of the greatest of the principles enunciated 
by Professor James in his famous laws of habit is that 
we should start the new habit with a strong initiative. 
Begin with great earnestness, start with boldness, 
and the good start will assist mightily in bringing the 
race to a successful conclusion. To make a strong 
public confession gives us spiritual nerve. 

(2) Note the effect of such a confession upon others. 
We may talk to our friends from now until the day of 
judgment, but all of our words combined will not have 


152 


The Resurrection Gospel 


half the effect of one strong, determined action. It is 
trite, perhaps, to say that actions speak louder than 
words, but certainly they do when it comes to the mat¬ 
ter of making the good confession. If we want to win 
our friends and neighbors, we must show that our 
faith is vital enough to prompt us to action. Draw 
them by the power of a mighty example. Lead them to 
the Lord instead of waiting for them to lead you. 

IV. The Imperative Necessity of Making the Good 
Confession. 

1. It is one of the definite conditions of the for¬ 
giveness of sins or of our salvation. 

In his great letter to the Romans, Paul speaks 
plainly of the necessity for the good confession when he 
says: “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as 
Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised 
him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the 
heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the 
mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10: 
9, 10). No words could be plainer than these. There 
are certain steps which every sinner who comes to 
Christ must take, and this is one of the steps. In 
order that he may make a real break with the old life, 
he must make a public acknowledgment of his faith 
in the Lord, and that he intends from this time on to 
lead the kind of life that Jesus would have him lead. 
Christ has done His part for the salvation of the 
w'orld, and He will do no more until we do our part 
in coming to Him. It is necessary, therefore, that a 
man make the good confession if he is to be saved from 
his sins and inherit the salvation which is in Christ 
Jesus, the Lord and Savior. There have been very 


The Good Confession 


153 


few in the past who have given to the good confession 
the proper place which it occupies in the glorious plan 
of human redemption. 

2. It is necessary that we make the good confession 
because we are all going to have to confess Him some 
day anyway. 

There is no escaping the great confession. We will 
make it here in this life among friends, and with the 
profound joy in the heart which is the possession of 
the one who loves the Lord—we will make it here as 
those who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior; or we will 
make it before all the assembled hosts around the great 
white throne as conquered rebels. This is the meaning 
of those words of the apostle to the Gentiles when he 
says: “Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and 
gave unto him the name which is above every name; 
that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of 
things in heaven and things on earth and things under 
the earth, and that every tongue should confess that 
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” 
(Phil. 2:10, 11). Some there are who think that they 
can be indifferent to Christ. They are neither for 
Him nor against Him. Theirs is the attitude of indif¬ 
ferent neutrality. But the Lord does not consider any 
man a neutral. We are for Him or we are against 
Him. We are in His army or we are His enemies. 
That is the sad part of it all. The man who, though 
in his own heart he may be friendly to the cause of 
the Lord, is nevertheless not actively engaged in bat¬ 
tling for Him, is considered by Jesus as an enemy. You 
can't treat Jesus with indifference always. Some day, 
my friend, you are going to confess Him. Either you 
will confess Him here as your Lord and Savior, or 


154 


The Resurrection Gospel 


there in the realms of glory, before all the assembled 
hosts, around the judgment throne of Christ, you will 
confess, in sorrow, that He is the Christ and the 
Judge of the world. Which will it be for you? Why 
not confess Him here and know all the joy of a for¬ 
given soul? 

3. Because if we confess Him here He will confess 
us before the Father and all the glorified ones of heaven. 

As plain as the words of Paul, concerning the neces¬ 
sity of making the good confession that we may be 
saved, is the promise that Jesus Himself has given to 
those who will confess Him before men. . 1 ‘ Every one 
therefore who shall confess me before men, him will I 
also confess before my Father who is in heaven. But 
whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also 
deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10: 
32, 33). What an amazing promise is this! That the 
Prince of glory should actually confess our names in 
heaven! That He should tell the great Father of all 
the world that He knows us, and that we are His! 

Can you visualize the scene which these words 
imply? Yonder, in the ivory palaces gleaming in the 
light of Him who is forever the Way, the Truth and the 
Life, in that city of splendor where they need no sun, 
a glorious host is waiting, anxious and expectant, 
attending to a scene on the earth. A battle is raging. 
The mighty powers of evil are contending with the 
armies of the great Captain of the armies of righteous¬ 
ness for human souls. Long and fierce and determined 
is that conflict. Again and again do the forces of the 
evil one advance to the battle. Every art known to 
the ingenious deviltry of the arch-deceiver of souls is 
employed; every temptation possible to devise, is 


The Good Confession 


155 


thrown in the way. For long the struggle continues. 
An invitation song is ringing. A man of God, in the 
name of Him who in heaven so anxiously waits, is 
pleading for a full surrender to the Son of God, for 
a public profession of faith in Him as the King. 
The sinner turns white with the terrible ordeal through 
which he is passing. He can not sing; he can only 
grasp the seat in front of him as Satan whispers in 
his ear, as the forces of the evil one strive for the 
mastery. But suddenly! Ah! yes, there comes a 
change. A new light gleams from the eyes, a smile 
of glory breaks over the face, and, thank God, he 
starts for the front of the church. With manly stride 
he steps forward and takes the pleading servant of 
King Jesus by the hand. In a voice firm with a mighty 
conviction he speaks: “I believe that Jesus is the 
Christ, the Son of the living God, and my Savior .’’ 
The decision is made, the battle is won, the fiendish 
schemes of the destroyer of souls are defeated, and 
he is backward hurled. Then what a change in 
heaven! The mighty hosts of God, who with such 
concern have been leaning over the battlements of 
heaven, eagerly waiting for the momentous decision, 
send up a tremendous shout of praise. The Son of 
God, with the glittering diadem of the adoration of 
a universe, stands before them. He speaks! What 
is it that those lips so pure would utter? He speaks, 
and all the hosts listen with rapture written upon 
their angelic faces, for before them all He speaks the 
poor name of the sinner who has just won the 
mighty battle against Satan. And then from that 
great choir, from those thousands upon thousands of 
white-robed singers, there rises a mighty song of 


156 


The Resurrection Gospel 


praise. In all the history of the world there have 
been but three times when the choirs of heaven sang. 
They sang at the creation of the world, when from 
the darkness which brooded over the face of the deep, 
there came forth, at the command of God, a creation 
in light and beauty, a dwelling-place fit for the 
noblest of all God’s creatures; they raised that song 
again with holier and more lofty joy when the Savior 
was born in the manger at Bethlehem, when the 
beautiful star of hope shone over the Judean hills; 
and they raise it again, until all the courts of heaven 
ring with its entrancing melody, when a sinner re¬ 
pents and turns away from his sins to God. All 
heaven is interested in the salvation of a soul. All 
heaven waits upon your decision. You can start the 
choirs of glory to singing this hour. Will you con¬ 
fess Him to-day? 


VII. 

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS 


Text. —“Then came Jesus on the scene from Galilee, to get 
baptized by John at the Jordan. John tried to prevent him; ‘I 
have need to get baptized by you,’ he said, ‘and you come to 
me ! 1 But Jesus answered him, ‘Come now, this is how we should 
fulfil all our duty to God.’ Then John gave in to him. Now 
when Jesus had been baptized, the moment he rose out of the 
water, the heavens opened and he saw the Spirit of God coming 
down like a dove upon him; and a voice from heaven said, ‘This 
is my Son, the Beloved, in him is my delight . 1 * 1 —Matt. 3: 13-17 
( Moffatt*s translation ). 

D OWN in the wilderness of Judea, that barren 
waste of land near the fords of the Jordan, 
great things were coming to pass. If one had walked 
the rocky roads or winding paths which led to that 
secluded spot, he would have found them packed with 
eager, anxious travelers, all going in one direction 
and talking excitedly as they went. Varying opinions 
were expressed by the conglomerate mob, as in the 
clouds of dust they wended their way down the rocky 
steeps, into the yawning gorge through which the 
sullen, yellow Jordan pushed its way, from the snows 
of the glittering mountains of the north to the brack¬ 
ish sea of death. “He is Elijah,” they said, “for 
his words burn like a consuming fire.” “Now at last 
has salvation come to the house of Israel,” said others, 
“for verily he is the Messiah Himself.” And so they 
debated about this strange evangelist, this new prophet 

157 


158 


The Resurrection Gospel 


who had risen on the horizon like a bright new star, 
as they came from lovely Galilee, from priestly Hebron 1 
or from the holy city of the great King. There, at 
the very place where Israel had long ago entered into 
the promised land, in these dark days of shame and 
sorrow the new kingdom of God was beginning. 
Here, where through baptism their fathers had en¬ 
tered into the smiling land flowing with milk and 
honey, the modern Israel, through baptism, was to 
enter into a Kingdom of which there should be no 
end and with which no other could ever compare in glory. 
For, in that desolate and uninhabited waste which 
tumbles away from Jericho south to the Dead Sea, 
in Bethany beyond Jordan, a mighty revival of re¬ 
ligion had broken out. The long darkness so hope¬ 
less and drear had passed; the new light was dawn¬ 
ing, for the forerunner of the King was sounding his 
mighty voice through the land: “Repent ye: for the 
kingdom of heaven is at hand.” For, in the wilder¬ 
ness of Judea, there was one whom it was worth’ while 
to hear, a wild eagle, a man of fire, an eremite whose 
sins had been burned out of him by the blazing, blister¬ 
ing heat of many suns. Out of a pure heart rang his 
cry of warning, his appeal to repentance. That we 
may understand more clearly Christ’s baptism let us 

I. Consider as a Background for Our Study the 
Work of John the Baptist. 

1. Note , first of all, the condition of the age. 

It was an age of doubt. Uncertainty reigned in 
every heart. The old things were passing away and 

1 1 am indebted in the outline here to Farrar—“The Life of Christ.” 
pp. 55-62. 



The Baptism of Jesus 


159 


chaos blighted the souls of men. To the Jew it was a 
prolonged horror. The scepter had long since passed 
from the hands of Judah, and an insolent, cruel 
dominion was exercised over ravaged Palestine by the 
conquerors of the world. The sacred institutions of 
the race were rapidly losing their holy character, for 
the high piesthood was tampered with at will by half¬ 
savage Idumean princelings and Roman procurators. 
That body of dignified men who in times past were 
looked upon as the highest and holiest in Israel, the 
Sanhedrin, was already under the unscrupulous in¬ 
fluence of “supple Herodians or wily Sadducees.” 
Indeed, as the ever-darkening clouds rolled up on the 
horizon, menacing with their warning of impending 
doom all things which to the pious Jew were sacred, 
it must have seemed to him that already the fountains 
of the great deep were broken up. In such times there 
is, to many, no hope of consolation save in a vigorous 
espousal of the old positions, a return with the whole 
heart to the things that were once taught and believed. 
And to many of the Jews, with this sense of the near¬ 
ness of the wrath to come, there seemed nothing to do 
but to return with feverish enthusiasm to the teach¬ 
ings of the law, to ever deepen the expectancy of 
the coming of a deliverer, the long-expected Messiah. 
“The world had grown old, and the dotage of its 
paganism was marked by hideous excesses. Atheism 
in belief was followed, as among all nations it has 
always been, by a degradation in morals. Iniquity 
seemed to have run its course and reached its farthest 
goal. Philosophy had abrogated its functions except 
for the favored few. Crime was universal, and there 
was no known remedy for the horror and ruin which 


160 


The Resurrection Gospel 


it was causing in a thousand hearts. Remorse itself 
seemed to be exhausted, so that men were ‘past feel¬ 
ing’! There was a collosity of heart, a petrifying of 
the moral sense, which even those who suffered from it 
felt to be abnormal and portentous. Even the heathen 
world felt that ‘ the fulness of time had come. ’ ’ 91 

(1) There is a desire, in such a time as this, to 
escape from the world and its horrors. The soul 
grows sick, and the heart longs for the vastness of 
the desert, the ruggedness of the towering ranges. 
To be alone with God, to exist upon the scantiest fare, 
to commune with indifferent nature—all this seems to 
be far better than the follies of a life of luxury and 
ease, or the miseries of a corroding poverty. To let 
the life of the wild and untenanted places burn out 
the poison drawn from a dispirited, pagan civiliza¬ 
tion; to be alone, and to renounce it all—has been the 
desire of yearning hearts in many such times as that 
through which Israel was then passing. 

(2) There was a higher motive than this, however, 
in the asceticism of John. His was the desire to pre¬ 
pare himself for a glorious mission. In his heart the 
consciousness of it had long been burning. He knew 
that God had called him to be the path-maker for the 
King who was soon to come. The rigors of his life, 
then, were not inspired by the motive which leads the 
voluptuary in disgusted satiety to leave the world of 
men, that he may perchance find refuge, in the solitary 
places, from himself. Neither were they dictated by 
a cynical arrogance which demanded that he should 
stand apart from all men, nor yet did they take their 
roots in fear, the fear of the fanatic whose eyes are 


1 “The Life of Christ,” Farrar, pp. 55, 56. 



The Baptism of Jesus 


161 


turned inward so that he can do naught but con¬ 
template his own salvation. Though a Nazarite from 
his youth, yet it all had its beginning in the conscious¬ 
ness that he was to be as a flaming fire, to consume 
with the breath of his mouth, to bum like a torch into 
the rusted, corroded souls of a wicked and adulterous 
generation. It was a schooling, a stern and mighty 
discipline, whereby he might become the chosen voice 
of the All Highest, that that voice should ring forth 
from a body clean and a heart pure. Well has he been 
called the “prophet of fire.” 

2. The preaching of John and his baptism . 

(1) The character of this firebrand of God was full 
of impetuosity and courage. The calmness of peace 
which at times filled him was the result of a long and 
fiercely fought battle for self-mastery. His desire to 
bow in self-abnegation before his Lord, his unassail¬ 
able intrepidity in the face of dangers, his unsparing 
courage to cut to the heart the astounded multitudes 
whose presence his ringing message had brought flock¬ 
ing from city, village and countryside in unending 
streams—these qualities were his because of his life 
of communion in the solitudes of the desolate places. 
On his face were the traces of the struggle, and in the 
flash of his eyes still slumbered the lightning; in the 
awful intonations of his voice muttered the thunders 
that had scarcely departed. "While he was musing, 
the fire burned and at last he spoke with his tongue. 
Almost from boyhood he had been a voluntary eremite. 
In his solitude he had learned things unspeakable; 
there the unseen world had become to him a reality; 
there his spirit had caught a ‘touch of phantasy and 
flame!’ Communing with his own great, lonely heart— 

li 


162 


The Resurrection Gospel 


communing with the high thoughts of that long line 
of prophets, his predecessors to a rebellious people— 
communing with the utterances of the voices that 
came to him from the mountain and the sea—he had 
learned a deeper lore than he could have ever learned 
at Hillers or Shammai’s feet. In the tropic noonday 
of that deep Jordan valley, where the air seemed to 
be full of subtle and quivering flame—in listening to 
the howl of the wild beasts, in the long night under 
the luster of the stars ‘that seemed to hang like balls 
of fire in a purple sky’—in wandering by the sluggish, 
cobalt-colored waters of that accursed lake, until 
before his eyes, dazzled by the saline efflorescence of 
the shore strewn with its wrecks of death, the ghosts 
of the guilty seemed to start out of the sulphurous 
ashes under which they were submerged—he had 
learned a language, he had received a revelation, not 
vouchsafed to ordinary men—attained not in the 
school of the rabbis, but in the school of solitude, in 
the school of God.” 1 

(2) It is not to be wondered at that such a teacher 
was exactly suited to such a time. There were many 
teachers who preached flattery and blinked at the 
sins which were eating out the life of the nation, yea, 
who were themselves all too often rotten with the same 
sins themselves. Scribes and Pharisees, fat with good 
living, clothed in the finest robes, stood up and tried 
to edify with their essays on the precedents of the law 
and the traditions of the fathers. But John was 
another type of teacher. His was a countenance 
burned and bronzed by the purifying, blistering rays 
of the desert sun; his body clean because of his drink 


1 “The Life of Christ,” Farrar, p. 58. 



The Baptism of Jesus 


163 


of the water from the river and his food of locusts 
and wild honey; his lean, strong face, the lips pressed 
together and the eyes gleaming with the light of 
Heaven’s own giving; the leathern girdle about his 
loins and his mantle of camel’s hair—all this spoke 
of a man of rugged strength, of the courage which 
comes from self-denial and godliness. Here is a 
teacher to whom life is known; it is an open book; 
his words come from direct experience with God, the 
God of the mountains and desert, of the flinty crags 
which now were ringing with the scorn and righteous 
wrath of his voice. 

(3) The message which he preached had its effect 
upon the people. With such a voice ringing at the 
fords of the Jordan and echoing back from the hills 
of Moab, it was no wonder that from far and near the 
eager crowds streamed forth to hear the words of him 
who “ recalled Elijah by his life and Isaiah by his 
expressions.” For as they came they heard a message, 
a message of fire; for it came out of a heart which 
blazed and burned with indignation, which flamed 
forth in denunciation of the sins of a rotten race of 
vipers. On the throne of an empire ready soon to 
totter into ruin, a beast in human form (Tiberius) 
ever exhibited more and more revolting excesses. Herod 
Antipas was leading in the attempt to be known as the 
worst in lust and the most apostacized in his loss of 
faith. Priests there were whose lives were stained with 
extortion and adultery, whose hearts were as rotten 
as the people whom they blindly led. Soldiers came 
into the audience—wild, brutish fellows whose sole 
thought was graft and a life with as little honest 
service as possible. Scribes, Pharisees and tax-gather- 


164 


The Resurrection Gospel 


ers—all flocked to the preaching of this man who dealt 
in such a mighty way with the deep issues of life; 
this one who was so fearless, so heart-searching in 
speech, so downright in his scornful denunciations. 

For John was a preacher to the heart and con¬ 
science. Direct was his attack, and he dealt with those 
things which have never failed to win interest—sin 
and its forgiveness, reformation of heart and life. The 
preacher who deals with these themes will never lack 
for an audience. These were the themes discussed by 
the mighty Whitfield when he touched the hearts of 
the colliers at Kingswood till the tears poured from 
their eyes ‘ ‘ and made white gutters down their 
cheeks.” 1 Twenty thousand assembled to hear the 
message, and many hundreds were soon brought to 
contrition and repentance. And so it was with the 
stalwart precursor of the King of kings. His was the 
message of fire, awful in its warning, moving in its 
power to touch the very hidden things of the heart— 
yea, to pierce through and break open those hearts 
now listening in rapt attention and growing conster¬ 
nation to his words. “Without a shadow of euphem¬ 
ism, without an accent of subservience, without a 
tremor of hesitation, he rebuked the tax-gatherers for 
their extortionateness; the soldiers for their violence, 
unfairness and discontent; the wealthy Sadducees, the 
stately Pharisees, for a formalism and falsity which 
made them vipers of a viprous brood. The whole 
people he warned that their cherished privileges were 
worse than valueless, if, without repentance, they re¬ 
garded them as a protection against the wrath to 


1 “The Days of Hie Flesh,” David Smith. 



The Baptism of Jesus 


165 


come.” 1 Never was there such a pride in noble 
descent as that which swelled high in the breasts of 
these whited sepulchres who had the form of godliness 
without knowing the power of it. They loved to speak 
of their lineage from Abraham, not knowing that not 
merely he who has the blood of Abraham in his veins 
is Abraham’s son, but he that hath the spirit of the 
great father of Israel in his heart, even though by 
blood he be unrelated—this one is the true son of 
Abraham. Pointing to that old, gray pile of stones 
which fifteen hundred years before Joshua had placed 
where Israel had lodged that night, a stone for each 
tribe—those monuments which remained even unto 
that day—John flashes forth the sentence which struck 
their hearts like the blows of a mighty hammer: “And 
think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham 
to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of 
these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” 
It is not a matter of blood at all, for from the very 
stones which reminded them of their glorious fore¬ 
bears, whose conquering tread had long ago awakened 
the echoes from the very flinty crags which then 
frowned upon them, God was able to raise up a people 
with the spirit of Abraham. “And so He did when 
from the Gentiles, those stony-hearted worshipers of 
stones, He raised up a seed unto Abraham, heirs accord¬ 
ing to the promise.” 2 

But there was more to this message than the im¬ 
perious call to immediate repentance. Not only was 
the exceeding sinfulness of their sins reason enough for 
their repentance, but there was one even now more im- 


1 “The Life of Christ,” Farrar, p. 60. 

2 “The Days of His Flesh,” David Smith. 



166 


The Resurrection Gospel 


perative. The day of wrath was at hand! They had 
intuitively felt it for long, in the consciousness of im¬ 
pending doom. Deep in their hearts, in the degrada¬ 
tion and horrible immorality which everywhere sur¬ 
rounded them, they felt that all things were passing 
away. John simply gave their feeling articulate form, 
for, like a trumpet-blast, he announces the coming of 
the King, the awful avenger, the One who in wrath, 
with fan in His hand, shall cleanse His threshing-floor, 
gathering His wheat into the garner, but without mercy 
burning up the chaff with consuming fire. This was the 
message which most of all warmed their hearts, for 
he (John) was not the prophet, he was neither Elijah 
nor the Christ; but after him was coming One whose 
shoes he was not worthy to bear—yea, He was already 
with them, and among them, and they knew not of 
His presence. Vengeance was in the air; its coming 
was but the matter of moments. 

This was the message for his time, the message 
which was to inagurate the new dispensation, repen¬ 
tance and the kingdom of heaven. Without claiming 
the credentials of a single miracle, relying only on the 
moving power of his mighty message, the forerunner 
makes ready a people for Him whose advent was so 
near. “While he threatened detection to the hypocrite 
and destruction to the hardened, he promised also par¬ 
don to the penitent and admission into the kingdom 
of heaven to the pure and clean. ‘These two great 
utterances/ it has been said, ‘which he brings from 
the desert, contain two capital revelations to which 
all the preparation of the gospel has been tending— 
law and prophecy: denunciation of sin and promise of 


The Baptism of Jesus 


167 


pardon; the flame which consumes and the light which 
consoles—is not this the whole of the covenant V ’ ’ 1 

II. Let Us Now Consider the Baptism of Jesus with 
Its Attendant Manifestations. 

1. What did Jesvx do to be baptized? 

(1) He, first of all, went to the water. In the 
thirtieth year of His age Jesus came from Nazareth in 
the valley of Galilee to the preaching and baptism of 
His kinsman, John. Though by birth they were re¬ 
lated, their lives had been wholly separated and each 
had grown up amid different surroundings. John had 
lived in the house of the saintly priest, his father, at 
Juttah, in the far south of the land of the tribe of 
Judah, and not far from Hebron; Jesus had spent 
His life in the quiet and seclusion of Joseph’s carpen¬ 
ter shop in the smiling northland of Galilee. When 
the Master first came to the banks of the Jordan, 
doubtless for a time He listened with the crowds 
about Him to the scornful, biting words of the 
prophet: for, according to the emphatic testimony of 
John, at first “he knew him not.” It was undoubtedly 
his usual custom to examine with insistent care all 
who presented themselves for baptism, that they might 
by their true penitence be duly prepared for the solemn 
rite. When, therefore, Jesus presented Himself, re¬ 
questing that like the others who had preceded Him 
He, too, might go down into the waters, John must 
have also examined Him as to His preparation. Im¬ 
mediately the preacher is filled with astonishment. 
This One, who, when but a lad of twelve, had amazed 
the great rabbis and doctors in the temple, now, after 


1 "The Life of Christ,” Farrar, p. 61. 



168 


The Resurrection Gospel 


His eighteen years of communion with God and medi¬ 
tation on the Scriptures, could look into the eyes of the 
Baptist and fill him with astonishment. All who had 
come to John heretofore had come with trembling and 
tears, deep in the throes of a soul-racking repentance; 
but this One stood before him with manifestation of 
neither guilt nor fear, His look so noble, His bearing 
so majestic and solemn, the sinless beauty of His 
ways so apparent, “that at once He overawed and 
captivated the soul of John. To others he was the 
uncompromising prophet; kings he could confront 
with rebuke; Pharisees he could unmask with indigna¬ 
tion; but before this Presence all his lofty bearing 
falls. As when some unknown dread checks the flight 
of the eagle, and makes him settle with hushed scream 
and drooping plumage on the ground, so before ‘the 
royalty of inward happiness,’ before the purity of sin¬ 
less life, the wild prophet of the desert becomes like a 
submissive and timid child. The battle brunt which 
legionaries could not daunt—the lofty manhood before 
which hierarchs trembled and princes grew pale—re¬ 
signs itself, submits and adores before a moral force 
which is weak in every external attribute and armed 
only in an invisible mail.” 1 

Jesus came to the water. Seventy-one miles He 
walked that He might comply with the command of 
God; that He might fulfill every requirement; that 
He might be able to say in everything to His disciples, 
“Follow me.” Does this not contrast to-day with the 
attitudes of those who say, “ I do not think it necessary 
to be baptized. I think it but a formal thing without 
moral power or beauty”? Would it not be well for 


1 “The Life of Christ,” Farrar, p. 61. 



The Baptism of Jesus 


169 


such to think of their Lord who endured the fatigue of 
that long march that He might be baptized of John 
in the Jordan? 

(2) Jesus not only went to the water, but He went 
down into the water and was buried in it and raised 
from it. To the astonished protestation of John, “I 
have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to 
me?” the Master makes reply which settles the matter 
forever. John, who had so many times received the 
trembling confession from the thousands of penitents, 
now humbly and reverently makes his own. But Jesus 
answers in words so dignified, with explanation so 
satisfying, that immediately John accompanies Him 
down into the sullen, yellow waters and buries Him 
beneath them. And to the question which so often has 
been asked, “Why should our Lord submit to bap¬ 
tism V 9 the words of His reply to John constitute an 
answer which is so clear that it should forever set 
at rest all doubts about its meaning, “Suffer it just 
now, for thus it is becoming for us to fulfil every 
ordinance. ’ ’ 1 This that John was doing was accord¬ 
ing to an ordinance or command of God. Jesus was 
being obedient to the law of God as He had always 
been obedient, for though He was the Son, yet learned 
He obedience. When but a helpless infant He had 
been circumcised, and had been thus submitted to that 
rite which signified the putting away of all defilement 
of the flesh. Though He was the Son of the One to 
whom the Temple belonged, yet all through His man¬ 
hood He had paid year by year the Temple tax, 
though from it, because of His Sonship, He might 
justly have claimed exemption. He was bom under the 


1 "The Days of His Flesh," David Smith. 



170 


The Resurrection Gospel 


law that He might redeem them that were under the 
law, and it was becoming that He should fulfill all 
righteousness, that every ordinance of God He should 
obey, and that He should “fulfil his duty to God” 
(Matt. 3:15—Moffatt). It is here that the public 
ministry of our Lord truly begins, here that all He 
came to do for sinful man has its starting-point. It 
would not have been a strange thing had Jesus come 
from Nazareth to stand beside John in the waters 
and baptize men; but that He should come and submit 
with them, that He who knew no sin should come and 
submit to this baptism which was a baptism of repen¬ 
tance and for the remission of sins, surely this is an 
evidence of His Sonship, of the fact that He truly 
was the Servant of the Lord. “The astonishing thing 
is that, being what He was, He came to be baptized 
and stood side by side with the people. He identified 
Himself with them. As far as the baptism could ex¬ 
press it, He made all that was theirs His. It is as 
though He had looked on them under the oppression 
of their sins, and said: ‘On me let that burden, all 
that responsibility, descend.’ The key to the act is 
found in that great passage in Isaiah 53, in which the 
vocation of the Servant of the Lord, which, as we have 
seen, was present to our Lord’s mind at that moment, 
is most amply unfolded. The deepest word in that 
chapter, ‘He was numbered with the transgressors,’ is 
expressly applied by our Lord to Himself at a later 
period (Luke 22:37), and, however mysterious that 
word may be when we try to define it by relation to 
the providence and redemption of God—however appal¬ 
ling it may seem to render it as St. Paul does, ‘Him 
who knew no sin, God made to be sin for us’—here 


The Baptism of Jesus 


171 


in the baptism we see, not the word, but the thing— 
Jesus numbering Himself with the transgressors, sub¬ 
mitting to be baptized with their baptism, identifying 
Himself with them in their relation to God as sinners, 
making all their responsibilities His own. It was a 
‘ great act of loving communion with our misery , 1 
and in that hour, in the will and act of Jesus, the 
work of atonement ivas begun .” 1 Jesus does not say 
“I must,” for He did not need to be baptized for 
cleansing, but, “Thus it becometh us to obey.” Can 
any better reason be given, then, than that He did 
it to obey the Father? 

There is another beautiful thought growing out of 
the obedience of our Lord in submitting Himself for 
burial and resurrection. It was hinted at in the 
quotation just made from Dr. Denny, and is boldly 
put forward as an explanation by Papini, that in this 
act Jesus prefigured His own death, burial and resur¬ 
rection. The life of our Lord ended with those three 
fundamental facts which indisputably prove Him to 
be the divine Son of God—His death and burial and 
triumphant resurrection. And here, also, it is to be 
noted that His public ministry begins with a death 
to the old life of silence and preparation, a burial in 
the waters of Jordan and a resurrection from those 
waters into the glorious mission whereunto God had 
called Him. The work of atonement ended with a 
death and burial and resurrection, and began with 
the same facts as well. Though but the baptism of 
repentance, “yet it may serve to prefigure ‘the laver 
of regeneration. ’ ” 2 


1 “The Death of Christ,” Denny, p. 13. 
8 “The Life of Christ,” Farrar, p. 62. 



172 


The Resurrection Gospel 


But there is yet another lesson as to the meaning 
of this rite which, in the case of Jesus, John himself 
acknowledged was exceptional—a lesson for this con¬ 
fused age of ours. Jesus did not submit to baptism 
in order that He might show us how the act is to be 
performed. That, indeed, were a ridiculous explana¬ 
tion. But from what He did we learn what we our¬ 
selves must do. If we would follow Him, there can 
be but one thing for us to do: submit to death and 
burial and resurrection. As He identified Himself 
with the transgressors, with us, so we in this must 
identify ourselves with Him, and that can only be 
accomplished as we are buried with Him and raised 
with Him too. There is but one way to settle the con¬ 
troversy about baptism—a return to Jesus. If we will 
be baptized as He was baptized, there can be no longer 
any doubt in our minds. This thing the early dis¬ 
ciples did, this all the Christian world one day will do. 

(3) Jesus arose out of the water and was anointed 
with the Spirit of the Lord. As from the waters of 
the river the Lord arose, from the cloven heavens in 
dovelike radiance, there streamed forth the Spirit of 
God descending upon Him, and the “Bath Kol,” 
which, to the dull, unpurged ears of the watching 
thousands upon the bank, was but the roar of inarticu¬ 
late thunder, to the sensitive ears of John and Jesus 
was the voice of the heavenly Father confessing His 
own: “This is my Son, the Beloved; in him I am well 
pleased.’’ For John, the voice swept away all doubts. 
Now he knew that the One whose way he had so well 
prepared had come. For Jesus, it was the final revela¬ 
tion that His hour had come. From this day on He 
went forth in the “Spirit and power of Jehovah.” 


The Baptism of Jesus 


173 


And does not this glorious anointing of our Lord 
once again prefigure our own experience? Does it not 
bring to mind the words of Peter on the first Pente¬ 
cost, when he had said: “Repent ye, and be baptized 
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the 
remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of 
the Holy Spirit”? (Acts 2:38). Only as Jesus was 
the obedient Son of God could the Spirit come upon 
Him with power, for only to the obedient is the power 
of God vouchsafed. It is significant that the first 
recorded public utterance of Jesus is in exact accord 
with and the expression of a desire to be obedient to 
His Father. And thus, as we obey the Lord in His 
appointed command, to us comes the gift of the Spirit, 
the gift of power to live as He would have us live. 

(4) As Jesus “came up out of the water” (Mark 
1:10), He was “praying” (Luke 3:21). Is not this 
beautifully expressive of what our own attitude should 
be as we rise from the “laver of regeneration” into 
the new life which is in Him? It is to be a life of 
prayer, of close fellowship and walk with God. What 
better place for such a life of prayer to begin? Here, 
as always, our Lord can say: “Follow me.” As we 
follow Him into death, as with Him we go trustingly 
down into the waters of purification, so let us rise 
with prayerful hearts—hearts which are prayerful 
because they now are cleansed and thus can have close 
communion with our Father. 

(5) As Jesus was baptized, so, to us, He leaves a 
command. How often have we heard this, but does it 
not now grow in its meaning as we think of it in 
relation to His own baptism? Just before the ascension 
clouds received Him from the sight of His wondering 


174 


The Resurrection Gospel 


disciples, the now resurrected and soon to be crowned 
and glorified Lord commissions them: ‘‘Go ye there¬ 
fore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing 
them into the name of the Father and of the Son and 
of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things 
whatsoever I commanded you; and lo, I am with you 
always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:19, 
20). With those who follow Him, who keep this com¬ 
mand and teach others to keep it, He has promised 
to abide as the living Lord forever. It is not ours to 
tamper with baptism, for that were indeed an unholy 
act. It is ours only to obey, even as He Himself so 
beautifully “would fulfil every ordinance of God.” 
Follow Him, and He will make you fishers of men. 
Follow Him down into the waters and, rising from 
them, receive His spirit, for the path which He trod led 
at last to glory in the realms whence had come the 
approving voice of His Father. Follow Him! for as it 
meant to Him a reunion with His own Father, so to us 
will it mean a going home to be with that innumerable 
blood-washed throng of loved ones who have preceded 
us, and who in the “ivory palaces” of the redeemed 
are waiting for us now. Follow Him; for He is the 
way, the truth and the life. 


VIII. 

THREE ANSWERS TO THE SAME QUESTION 

Texts. —“And he called for lights and sprang in, and, trem¬ 
bling for fear, fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them 
out and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, 
Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy 
house. ”—Acts 16:29-31. 

“Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, 
and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what 
shall we do? And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be bap¬ 
tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the re¬ 
mission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Spirit.’’—Acts 2: 37, 38. 

“And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said 
unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told 
thee all the things which are appointed for thee to do. ”—Acts 
22 : 10 . 

“And why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash 
away thy sins, calling on his name. ’ ’—Aets 22: 16. 

Introduction. 

I T is a strange thing, to many, that the greatest 
question in the world is answered three different 
times in the New Testament, and the answer in each 
case seems to contradict those that have been given in 
the other places. The jailor, when he cried aloud in 
the agony of fear which possessed him, was told to 
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; the three thousand 
of Pentecost, when, for the first time, the realization 
broke upon them that they had actually murdered their 

175 


176 


The Resurrection Gospel 


own Lord and King, were told to “repent and be bap¬ 
tized”; while Saul of Tarsus, when, in blindness, for 
three days he had poured out his heart in penitence, 
was told to arise and be baptized and wash away his 
sins, calling on His name. I remember a young man 
in a Western State who came to me saying that he 
had read the Bible carefully from his childhood, and 
that he had been kept out of the church because he 
could not understand why the answers to this all- 
important question should contradict each other. After 
the explanation he walked down the aisle and gave his 
heart to the Lord. 

To any one, who has been a student of audiences, 
it is apparent that in every crowd there are those who 
are closer to the Lord than others. Some there are 
who attend the services with regularity. They are 
interested, and they sing the songs and enter into the 
spirit of the prayers, and listen with reverence and 
interest to the sermons. They are close to the King¬ 
dom. They have even felt the desire in the heart to 
surrender their souls to the keeping of the King of 
glory. On the other hand, there are those whose in¬ 
terest is but casual. They come to the services with 
perhaps some frequency, but they are not deeply 
affected by the message. They have friends who 
attend, and they come in order that they may be with 
those friends, that they may be entertained or amused. 
There are still others who are interested not at all. 
They come to the church once in a great while, but of 
the things of the Kingdom they are utterly ignorant. 
They are not at all concerned about their soul’s salva¬ 
tion. Now, with these facts in mind, one realizes, if 
he thinks about the matter, that it is impossible to give 


Three Answers to the Same Question 177 

a blanket answer to the question, “What must I do 
to be saved?” to all the classes of people in one audi¬ 
ence with their varying states of mind. The answer 
might fit one man and miss the others entirely. And 
yet this same mistake has been made thousands of 
times. I have attended meetings again and again 
when the blanket answer given to all the inquiries was: 
“Believe on the Lord Jesus.” Some poor fellow 
would come to the front weeping because of his sins, 
convicted in heart and penitent, if ever a man in this 
world was penitent; and yet he was told to believe a 
little more. Many souls have been lost because of the 
blind teachers, who knew not what to say save to give 
one answer to all who came. We should remember that 
we must take into account the progress that a man has 
made on his journey to the Christ, before we can give 
him the true answer to the great question. In this 
message we will consider the three cases and see if 
this law which we have noted applies. 

ARGUMENT. 

I. The Case of the Philippian Jailor. 

Paul and Silas had been preaching the gospel in 
Philippi, a Roman colony. Wherever the gospel is 
preached in its fullness and power, without any fear, 
but with holy boldness, there is sure to be consterna¬ 
tion and furor. Paul and his companions were gospel 
preachers, whose courage was unfaltering, and to whom 
there was nothing in the world worth while save the 
proclamation of the glad tidings. Hence, with all the 
earnestness at their command, they had published in 
Philippi the glorious news that a Savior had been 
12 


178 


The Resurrection Gospel 


born, whose death on the cross had opened to men 
the way of salvation. A certain maid possessed with 
a spirit of divination, a poor creature by whose 
strange powers much gain had been brought to her 
masters, followed Paul and Silas, crying out: “These 
men are servants of the most high God, who proclaim 
unto you the way of salvation” (Acts 16:17). Paul, 
being disturbed and humiliated by the unwelcome 
publicity thus secured, turned finally and rebuked the 
spirit in the name of Jesus, commanding him to come 
out of her. This action caused the wrath of the mas¬ 
ters, thus cheated out of all hope of gain, to descend 
upon Paul and his companion with unabated fury. 
They were dragged before the authorities, and after 
being severely beaten were thrown into the prison, the 
jailor being charged to keep them securely. Receiving 
such instructions, the jailor cast them into the inner 
prison and fastened their feet in the stocks. What 
a predicament this is for the servant of the Most 
High to endure! But such men were not to be 
daunted by such persecutions as these. They were 
men whose hearts were unafraid, so, even with dark 
prison walls greeting every turn of the eye, even with 
the discomfort and actual pain caused by the stocks, 
even though their backs were bloody because of the 
lash, they were unabashed. Thus, in the midst of the 
night, with courage high, they were “praying and 
singing hymns unto God. ’ ’ And they were not without 
an audience, for the prisoners were listening unto them. 
Undaunted courage such as this, unswerving convic¬ 
tion so mighty, will never fail to attract an audience 
of willing and eager listeners, and on this occasion 
“the prisoners were listening to them.” What aston- 


Three Answers to the Same Question 179 

ishment the words of the bruised and bleeding dis¬ 
ciples must have caused in the darkness of that jail! 
What new and strange emotions must have surged 
through the hearts of the silent listeners as these God- 
intoxicated men preached and sang, in this midnight 
evangelistic service, the triumphant praise of their 
glorified Lord. Was it the songs that were sung which, 
like the music of old, had crumbled the proud walls of 
an ancient, haughty and arrogant city, on that black 
night brought to startled ears the first rumbles of the 
earthquake? Was it the mighty message of truth 
which echoed through those foul cells, piercing through 
crime-hardened hearts, and into shivering souls rotten 
with sin, which caused the rocking of that prison to 
its very foundation, riving the rocks of the walls, tear¬ 
ing open the doors, and striking from the hands and 
feet the unholy fetters which bound the innocent 
messengers of the most high God? Did the hand of 
Him whose work can not know defeat, reach out and 
smite that prison that His own might carry on their 
mission? Who but the Most High can tell? Strange 
indeed are His ways, and pone but Jehovah knoweth 
His inmost thoughts. But, whether it was special 
exercise of His power or not, we read in the terse 
words of Luke: “Suddenly there was a great earth¬ 
quake, so that the foundations of the prison-house were 
shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened; 
and every one’s bands were loosed” (Acts 16:26). 
And, amidst it all the prisoners were not the only 
ones affected; for the jailor was suddenly roused from 
his sleep, and, rushing to the doors of the prison and 
finding them open, and supposing that at the splendid 
opportunity for escape, thus afforded, the prisoners 


180 


The Resurrection Gospel 


had fled, in accordance with the Roman code of honor 
he drew his sword and was in the act of committing 
suicide, when, from the inner prison darkness, there 
came a great cry which stayed his hand and filled his 
soul with relief: “Do thyself no harm, for we are all 
here” (Acts 16:28). Here in the midst of the night, 
with the ruin and desolation and horror of the earth¬ 
quake around him, with the noise of it all beating 
upon his ears, the jailor’s thoughts turned to God 
and to his own salvation from the sinful life which 
was then the usual thing with men of his class. 
Trembling with fear, he called for lights, and, spring¬ 
ing into the prison, he fell down before Paul and 
Silas. Then, arising, he brought them out, and in 
shaking voice he asked the great question of our text: 
“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Immediately 
the answer is given: “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and 
thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house.” 

And why did Paul and Silas give this answer? 
Let us study the character and religious condition of 
the jailor that we may have a proper background 
for our answer. In the first place, he did not know 
anything about Jesus Christ or His church. He had 
not even heard the preaching in the prison, for at that 
time he was asleep. We have no record that he had 
heard any of the preaching in the city. He, of course, 
knew about the charges against Paul and Silas, and 
probably in an indirect manner he knew that they were 
preachers of some new and strange doctrine, which 
had caused commotion and consternation in the colony. 
At any rate, in the spirit of the mob he had thrown 
them into the inner prison and had done all in his 
power to see that they had no chance to escape. It 


Three Answers to the Samrie Question 181 

was only when, by the timely cry of Paul, he had been 
hurled back from the brink of eternity, that all else 
was forgotten and his thoughts turned to God and his 
own salvation. We may sum up his condition by 
saying that he was an untaught unbeliever in the 
Lord Jesus Christ. The answer given to him, then, is 
the one which meets the state of mind in which he 
finds himself. He is told to “believe on the Lord 
Jesus.’’ In order that he may believe, we are 
told in the next verse that “they spake the word of 
the Lord unto him, with all that were in his house” 
(v. 32). This is in accordance with the divine plan, 
for we are told by Paul that “belief cometh of hear¬ 
ing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (Rom. 10: 
17). How eagerly he must have listened to the won¬ 
derful word of life which, to him, would bring a new 
life indeed. Those who would contend that the jailor 
and his household were saved by faith, and by faith 
alone, “leave the jail too soon.” The rest of the con¬ 
version must be studied in order to understand its full 
meaning. “And he took them the same hour of the 
night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he 
and all his, immediately. And he brought them up 
into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced 
greatly with all his house, having believed in God” 
(Acts 16:33, 34). In these words the writer of Acts 
tells us the story that while the jailor was told to do 
but the one thing, to believe on the Lord Jesus, yet he 
did all three: he believed, he repented and he was bap¬ 
tized. In a word, while told to comply with but one 
condition, he complied with all the conditions which 
are laid down as steps into Christ. The reason for 
this is to be found in the fact that the first step always 


182 


The Resurrection Gospel 


leads to the other two, and that without the other two 
there is no salvation. He was told to do the one thing, 
because that was the first step to be taken, and the 
jailor was an untaught unbeliever and had to go all 
the way. The fact that he repented is found in his 
act of washing the stripes of the disciples after he had 
entered into knowledge of the spirit which had caused 
them to be so unjustly beaten. The answer, then, to 
the jailor is one which meets his state of mind. While 
told to do but one thing, he did as all men do who 
fulfill the laws of God, he obeyed completely. 

II. The Case of the Three Thousand of Pentecost. 

Here we have a case far different from the one 
which we have just been considering. How thrilling 
is the very name of Pentecost! What visions it stirs 
up in the mind of the true follower of Christ! What 
movement and excitement are there in those visions! 
The birthday of the church of God! The beginning of 
all that the name 4 ‘Christian civilization’’ denotes! 
A great audience had assembled. The immediate 
cause of their coming together is the descent of the 
Holy Spirit, and the ecstatic speaking in tongues on 
the part of the apostles of the Lord. And what an 
audience it was! Some there were who were amazed 
and confounded, filled with wonder at the fact that 
they were hearing each man in the language in which 
the hearer was born. Others there were who were 
filled with derision, and, mockingly incredulous, made 
fun of the whole proceeding, saying: “They are filled 
with new wine” (Acts 2:13). Here were interest and 
enthusiasm. What a chance for the preacher to bring 
his message with pile-driving force to the hearts and 


Three Answers to the Same Question 183 

consciences of the multitude! The very air was sur¬ 
charged with a spirit of expectancy. All was attention 
and eagerness. It was then that Peter arose and 
preached the first great gospel sermon. In it, for the 
first time, and under the glorious new dispensation, 
the terms of pardon in Jesus Christ were given! 
When at last the question was asked in agony of 
spirit, “Brethren, what shall we do?” the answer 
given was one entirely different from that given to 
the jailor; for Peter replied: “Kepent ye, and be bap¬ 
tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ 
for the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the 
gift of the Holy Spirit.” And why this answer? A 
study of the religious condition of the audience will 
tell us the answer; and inquiry into the state of 
mind in which, at the close of that message, they 
found themselves will show that the answer was the 
only one which in the circumstances could have been 
given. These people knew Jesus Christ. They had 
lived with Him, talked with Him, witnessed His 
miracles of healing, and had heard Him preach the 
wonderful things of the coming Kingdom. These were 
they who had come with Him into Jerusalem as He 
made His triumphal entry, throwing their garments in 
His path and crying with delirious joy: “Hosanna 
to the son of David.” Many of these were they who 
went with the officers into the garden, on the night 
at Gethsemane, to arrest Him and bring Him to trial. 
They were the ones who had stood before the judg¬ 
ment-seat of Pilate, howling in crazed rage: “Crucify 
him, crucify him.” These were the same fickle traitors 
to their great national hope who, forgetful of all the 
past —or was it with deliberation?—had yelled: “We 


184 


The Resurrection Gospel 


have no king but Caesar/’ Hundreds of these were 
the same people who had walked the way of sorrows, 
but without sorrow in their hearts. They were the 
same ones who had stood at the cross and had mocked 
the Lord in His sufferings, had polluted His holy body 
with their vile spitting, and blackened their own souls 
by their unrelenting cruelty and hatred. These were 
the same stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart who 
had gazed into each others’ horrified eyes as the dark¬ 
ness came down over the earth and, as if in protest 
against the awful wickedness of it all, even the earth 
itself rocked and shuddered. These people knew Jesus 
Christ. They had known His life; they had seen Him 
die. And what did they think about Him? They 
thought Him dead and buried. They believed the story 
which had been told by the Roman guard, that the dis¬ 
ciples had come by night and stolen the body away 
while the soldiers were sleeping. When, therefore, 
Peter faced the crowd he had but one task before him. 
It was to prove to his hearers that Jesus was not stolen 
from the tomb, but that He had been raised from the 
dead by the power of God. And a study of the ser¬ 
mon reveals the fact that He did this great thing; in 
a word, the whole burden of his sermon is that Christ 
had risen and that He was at that very moment by 
the right hand of God, exalted to be a Prince and 
Savior. The whole thesis of the sermon is summed 
up in those powerful words: “Let all the house of 
Israel, therefore, know assuredly, that God hath 
made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye 
crucified.” As Peter progressed in his sermon toward 
this mighty conclusion, there came a gradual change 
in the souls of his audience. From sneering and 


Three Answers to the Same Question 185 

mockery there grew up a deep interest. That interest 
deepened, and finally all over the audience there were 
men who were asking each other the burning question: 
“Is he right? Can this thing be? Is it possible that 
we have actually crucified the Messiah to whose com¬ 
ing we have so ardently looked forward all these years ? 
No, it is impossible. Our King could not be a cruci¬ 
fied one, for He was to come in glory and power. He 
was to be a ruler like unto David. His was to be a 
rule of blood and iron toward the enemies of Jehovah. 
No, this one could not be our King.” So, the old 
national ambition battled in their minds for supremacy 
against this new thought of the world kingdom of 
hearts, the true kingdom of God. But the arguments 
of Peter, guided as he was by the Holy Spirit, were 
irresistible, and gradually the truth of what he was 
preaching cut into the hearts of the multitude, bring¬ 
ing with them terrible conviction, until at last there 
arose that great, hoarse cry of agony, that cry of 
thousands of those who, in their sorrow and horror, 
were experiencing the anguish of the very damned: 
“Brethren, what shall we do?” Why did not Peter 
tell them to believe on the Lord Jesus as Paul told 
the jailor? Many to-day would have told them to 
do that very thing. I have attended meeting after 
meeting where this very thing was done. Some peni¬ 
tent, in deep contrition of heart, would come to the 
front of the building, only to be told to believe on the 
Lord Jesus as his Savior, or only to believe more, 
when the very reason that he had come was the fact 
that he already believed. He had come, in some way, 
to do something that would express the faith in his 
heart. Peter did not tell the three thousand to believe 


186 


The Resurrection Gospel 


because of the fact that their cry, “Brethren, what 
shall we do?” was the cry of believing men. They 
had been made believers in the deity of Jesus by the 
powerful sermon which the fiery apostle had just 
preached. Building upon the foundation of the pre¬ 
vious knowledge of the Lord, he had proved unto them, 
in a manner utterly indisputable, that this Jesus is 
their long-expected Messiah. He did not, therefore, 
tell them to believe, for they already were believers, 
but he told them to do that which they had not already 
done; that is, repent and be baptized. That same day 
they gladly received the Word and were added to the 
church of the Lord by their repentance and baptism. 
In one word, then, the answer given to the three 
thousand of Pentecost is the answer which met the 
state of mind in which they had found themselves at 
the time of the asking of the question. It was the 
state of believers, but impenitent believers, in Jesus. 

The jailor was told to believe in the Lord Jesus, 
and, that he might believe, the gospel was preached 
unto him. When he believed, he repented and the 
same night was baptized into Christ. The three thou¬ 
sand of Pentecost were told to repent and be baptized, 
because of the fact that when they asked the ques¬ 
tion they were already believers in Christ as the 
Son of God and the Savior of the world. They 
therefore believed, repented and were baptized. The 
jailor also believed, repented and was baptized. The 
same law of pardon was complied with by both, the 
only difference in the conversions being that the 
three thousand were nearer the Kingdom at the time 
of their asking the question than was the jailor. The 
law is, however, the same. 


Three Answers to the Same Question 187 
III. The Case of Saul of Tarsus. 

The third case in which the answer to the great 
question occurs is the most intensely interesting of 
all. I can never fail to become enthusiastic at the very 
mention of the name “Saul” or “Paul.” How much 
he has meant to the cause of our Lord! “No man 
exercised so powerful an influence upon the thought 
and life of the early church as the apostle Paul. 
This fact is, no doubt, due in large part to his native 
enthusiasm and energy. Throwing his whole soul into 
any cause which he espoused, he proved as efficient 
and vigorous in the character of a champion as he 
had formerly been in that of a persecutor of Chris¬ 
tianity. The intellectual gifts of the apostle were also 
highly favorable to his influence. He took a clear and 
strong hold upon principles. He defined his convic¬ 
tions sharply, cherished them intensely and carried 
them out consistently in action. ’ ’ 1 He is ever a 
man of strength, and strong men always admire a 
strong man. I think that this is the reason why all 
truly great soul-winners have been ardent admirers 
of the apostle to the Gentiles. And then his career 
is so romantic. From an ardent and determined 
enemy he became an ardent and determined advocate 
of that which he had persecuted. 

Saul was a young man, a young man of talent 
and education, a man before whom stretched long 
and happy vistas of advancement and opportunity in 
the service of his people. The greatest teachers of 
his people had been his, the finest blood of the race 
flowed in his veins, the distinction and privileges of 


1 “The Pauline Theology,” Stevens. 



188 


The Resurrection Gospel 


Roman citizenship were his prized possession. With 
all the ardor of his fiery nature, and with all the in¬ 
tensity of his soul, he had entered into the persecu¬ 
tions of the new sect called ‘ ‘ Christians . 9 * He rea¬ 
soned that if these people succeeded, there must, of 
necessity, be an end to his ancient and honorable faith. 
All the hoary centuries of glorious history must come 
to an end in eclipse and oblivion if the message these 
people preached prevailed. And what would become 
of the great Messianic hope? How anxiously had he, 
in his patriotic zeal, looked forward to the time when 
the great new King should come, at the clarion call 
of whose bugles an unconquerable army would rush 
to arms, and under His mighty leadership break the 
iron band of Rome and set His people free. His 
eye would shine at the thought of it, and his cheek 
would burn red as he dreamed of that glorious day. 
His zeal for the law of his fathers, that law which 
had come into being amidst the thunders of Sinai, 
and his uncompromising patriotism, a patriotism which 
was a part of his very blood, would therefore cause 
him to throw himself into the persecution of these 
heretics with a cruelty and fury which could scarce 
be equaled. The utter abandom of himself to this 
persecution, the terrible intensity of it, is told in his 
own words as he makes his defense before Agrippa: 
'‘I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do 
many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Naza¬ 
reth. And this I also did in Jerusalem: and I both 
shut up many of the saints in prisons, having received 
authority from the chief priests, and when they were 
put to death I gave my vote against them. And 
punishing them oftentimes in the synagogues, I strove 


Three Answers to the Same Question 189 

to make them blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad 
against them, I persecuted them even unto foreign 
cities” (Acts 26:9-12). The very spirit of a demon 
seemed to possess the zealot of the Jewish faith as, 
without quarter and in his words, 4 ‘even unto death,” 
he persecuted the Way. 

But one day there came an experience in his life 
which changed it forever. Just outside the walls of 
the Holy City he was witnessing the execution of a 
young man, a young man who was a believer in this 
hated new faith. The young man was about thirty 
years of age, full of life and vigor, with all the great¬ 
est and best things in the world before him. Saul 
was standing at a little distance. At his feet were 
piled the garments of those who were, in their fiend¬ 
ish rage, hurling the stones upon the bruised and pros¬ 
trate form of the first martyr of the church of the 
Lord. Saul was intensely interested in it all. How 
would this fellow die? Will he be true to his faith 
to the end? Doubtless these and many other thoughts 
were running through the mind of this inveterate 
enemy of the church of Christ, as he watched the sad 
scene of the death of a young man whose only crime 
had been that he believed in Him whose life had 
meant naught but good to the world. And it was 
just at this moment that Stephen spoke again. “But 
he, being filled with the Holy Spirit, looked up sted- 
fastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and 
Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, 
Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of 
man standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7: 
55, 56). “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7: 
59). And with these words a prayer for his mur- 


190 


The Resurrection Gospel 


derers, “Lord Jesus, lay not this sin to their charge,” 
in the simple and beautiful language of the writer 
of Acts, “he fell asleep.” The execution over, Saul 
turned away. There was a sickness in his heart, for 
the whole sordid affair had affected him strangely. 
There was not so much assurance in his soul as 

there had formerly been. Stephen was so kind, so 

compassionate, that even in his death he held no 

malice against his murderers, though knowing that he 
died unjustly. And then his confidence in his vision 
that he had seen the Lord. Did he really see the One 
whom he (Saul) had been so determinedly persecut¬ 
ing? These, and a flood of other tormenting ques¬ 
tions, surged through the unsettled mind of Saul, 
further unsettling him in his conviction that all this 
was a heresy which at all costs must be stamped out. 
But Saul was ever a man of action, and one of the 
best ways in the world to quell tormenting doubts 
is by action. Hence, from the execution of Stephen, 
he went forth into a persecution of the church even 
more ferocious and terrible than he had waged be¬ 
fore. How much of suffering is contained in the 
brief words of the inspired writer: “And there arose 
on that day a great persecution against the church 
which was in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered 
abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, 
except the apostles. And devout men buried Stephen, 
and made great lamentation over him. But Saul laid 
waste the church, entering into every house, and drag¬ 
ging men and women committed them to prison” 
(Acts 9:2, 3). Here is a picture of unassuageable 
grief. The church had lost one of her greatest men, 
and at the same time had been made the object of 


Three Answers to the Same Question 191 

unswerving hate and ravaging persecution, by that 
very one whom God had chosen to take the place of 
him who so gloriously had died. At this time none 
in that stricken group of Christians could understand 
why their greatest young prophet should be taken, and 
why their most feared enemy should be allowed to rage 
up and down the land, bringing suffering and death 
to the saints. How strange are the ways of God, and 
yet, if we have but the faith to trust His will, how 
glorious are the ends which are revealed by the work¬ 
ing oijt to the conclusion of His plans. 

Like a raging lion Saul continues his work of 
death. How often it has been, in the history of the 
church, that just before their conversions some of the 
greatest of her saints have seemingly been furthest 
away. And so it was with Saul. Blindly, seeing in 
his blindness nothing save the ruin of that which was 
to be to him so precious, he goes at last to the high 
priest. How vividly Luke describes him as he says: 
“And Saul, yet breathing threatening and slaughter 
against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high 
priest, and asked of him letters to Damascus unto 
the synagogues, that if he found any that were of the 
Way, whether men or women, he might bring them 
bound to Jerusalem” (Acts 9:1-3). What a scene 
that must have been which took place in the presence 
of the high priest. As the leader of the people thought 
of the rising power of this sect, to whom persecution 
was seemingly the very breath of life in that the more 
it was scattered the more it grew, his face no doubt 
clouded with black anger. “Saul, thou knowest what 
thou art to do. If this damnable thing goes on, the 
very life of our ancient faith is in danger. All the 


192 


The Resurrection Gospel 


years of glorious history which have been the pride 
of every true son of Israel are as naught, if these 
heretics have their way. Hence thou art to have no 
mercy, thou art to show no quarter; bring them to us 
here, and we will see if stern punishment can not at 
last bring these deluded ones to their senses. Go, 
and may the blessings of thy fathers be with thee, for 
thou art indeed the defender of thy people.” Some 
such words as these would the young Sanhedrist hear 
as he went with his commission to the city of the 
north. 

How proud, and even haughty, is Saul as he starts 
on his journey to Damascus, 140 miles northeast! In 
the leisurely manner of travel in the east this was at 
least a week’s journey. A week! Ah! how much 
thinking Saul could do in a week; for he was essen¬ 
tially a thinker, and perhaps the greatest and keenest 
thinker of his day. What a tumult must have racked 
his soul! Now and then there must have come before 
his tortured eyes the picture of the blood-stained face 
of Stephen, and to his ear those words: ‘‘I see the 
heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on 
the right hand of God.” Again and again must 
have come those insidious doubts, gradually becoming 
stronger. “Am I right? Has the Messiah already 
come and have I missed Him? Or, is He yet to 
appear as a mighty conqueror, a man of blood and 
iron, a warrior at the thunder of whose legions even 
proud Rome shall tremble? A crucified Jew? My 
mighty King crucified like a common robber? In¬ 
credible! Impossible! No, He would not come like 
that. All the traditions of our fathers tell us that 
He is to come in pomp and glory as a proud soldier 


Three Answers to the Same Question 193 

and prince. ’ 1 And then he would think of the law. 
How carefully he had tried to keep it, and how miser¬ 
able, after all, had been his failure. And the law 
offered no life save as he kept it to the very letter. 
To fail in one part was to fail in all. He must keep 
it all or every effort was vain. The utter impossibility 
of this he could not deny. The very hope he wanted, 
for which his soul was so thirsty, the law did not and 
could not give. But these Christians had it. They 
could die with a shout of praise upon their lips. They 
could go down to death saying: “Lord Jesus, lay not 
this sin to their charge.” They had something that 
he did not possess, and yet something which his heart 
longed for as it had never longed for anything else. 
And then once more there must have come before him 
the picture of the angelic face of Stephen as he fell 
asleep in his calm faith in the Lord. There must 
have rung once more in his ears the words of assur¬ 
ance: “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man 
standing on the right hand of God.” And so the time 
went by—days of brooding over it all: nights of an¬ 
guish when sleep came not to his tortured pillow, but, 
in tossings and turnings of body, the battle raged 
within his doubting spirit. At last the final day of 
the journey came, and Saul and his companions 
climbed the long hill to the plateau upon which 
Damascus is situated. For a time they traversed a 
bare and bleak plain where there is naught to relieve 
the terrible glare of the sun as it blazes with its intol¬ 
erable heat upon the weary traveler. At last, on this 
undulating plain, they came to the village of Kaukab, 
or “The Star.” “At this point,” in the beautiful 
words of Farrar, “a vision of surpassing beauty bursts 

13 


194 


The Resurrection Gospel 


upon the eye of the weary traveler. Thanks to the 
‘golden’ Abana and the winding Pharpar, which flow 
on either side of the ridge, the wilderness blossoms like 
a rose. Instead of brown and stony wastes, we begin 
to pass under the flickering shadows of ancient olive- 
trees. Below, out of a soft sea of vendure, amid 
masses of the foliage of walnuts and pomegranates 
and palms, steeped in the rich haze of sunshine, rise 
the white-terraced roofs and glittering cupolas of that 
immemorial city of which the beauty has been com¬ 
pared in every age to the beauty of a paradise of 
God. There, amid its gardens of rose and groves of 
delicious fruit, with the gleam of waters that flowed 
through it, flooded with the gold of breathless morn, 
lay the “Eye of the East.’ To that land of streams, 
to that city of fountains, to that paradise of God, 
Saul was hastening, not on messages of mercy, not to 
add to the happiness and beauty of the world, but to 
scourge and to slay and to imprison those perhaps of 
all its inhabitants who were the meekest, the gentlest, 
the most pure of heart. Can we doubt that at the 
sight of this lovely glittering city, ‘like a handful of 
pearls in a goblet of emerald,’ he felt once more a 
recoil from his unhallowed task?” His heart must 
have turned sick within him as he looked upon the 
peaceful city by the side of the golden waters, quiet 
and at rest in its noonday sleep. 

It was high noon. Any traveler who has been in 
the east at high noon knows exactly what an experi¬ 
ence these words recall to him. The Syrian sun blazes 
with an intensity almost impossible to imagine. Not 
a cloud in the sky, the sun overhead glares until it is 
like molten brass; the earth underneath glows like 


Three Answers to the Same Question 195 

white-hot iron in the midst of the furnace; “the whole 
air, as we breathe it, seems to quiver as though it were 
pervaded with subtle flames.” And yet in this intoler¬ 
able blaze of the sun, with its prostrating heat, Saul 
orders his companions forward to the city. At this 
time of day all travelers in the east take their rest, 
and that Saul thus orders his companions to go on is 
but another evidence of his tremendous effort to quell 
the recurring doubts which must have kept his soul 
in turmoil so long. His is a restless and troubled im¬ 
patience and impassioned and eager haste. 

“Then suddenly all is ended—the eager haste, the 
agonizing struggle, the mad infatuation, the feverish 
desire to quench doubt in persecution. Round them 
suddenly from heaven there lightened a great light. 
It was not Saul alone who was conscious of it. It 
seemed as if the whole atmosphere had caught fire, 
and they were suddenly wrapped in sheets of blinding 
splendor. It might be imagined that nothing can out- 
dazzle the glare of the Syrian sun at noon, but this 
light was more vivid than its brightness, more pene¬ 
trating than its flash.” Was it a flash of lightning 
more brilliant in its dazzling wonder than any that ever 
flashed before? Frequent are the mighty storms of 
thunder and lightning which occur when the warm 
air from the desert meets the colder air of the moun¬ 
tain summits. Did Saul hear in the terrific peal of 
the thunder-blast the voice of the Lord to his soul? 
Was that awful, and, to his traveling companions, un¬ 
intelligible, sound formed into articulate language 
to the receptive soul of the doubt-tormented persecu¬ 
tor? As if by the hand of the mighty One Himself, 
all of them were struck with terrible force to the earth, 


196 


The Resurrection Gospel 


and when at last the companions of Saul were able to 
rise, they beheld Saul lying prostrate there. They 
were conscious that something awful had happened, 
that this was no ordinary occurrence; for they had 
heard the sound of the voice, though they understood 
not the words. 4 4 Had we been able to ask them what 
it was, it is more than doubtful if they could have 
said. Had it been suggested to them that it was some 
overwhelming burst of thunder, some inexpressibly 
vivid gleam of electric flame, some blinding, suffocat¬ 
ing, maddening breath of the sirocco, they might have 
known.” But to Saul all was clear, for about him, 
above him, around him, he heard a great voice speak¬ 
ing its thunderous tones to him in the ancient tongue 
of his fathers: “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 
it is hard for thee to kick against the goad” (Acts 26: 
14). In dazed tones came the amazed question of 
Saul, “Who art thou, Lord?” and the reply of the 
King: “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But arise, 
stand on thy feet: for to this end have I appeared 
unto thee.” To what end? Nine out of ten religious 
teachers of the day would answer: “To convert him 
from his sins, to make a Christian of him.” Ah, no! 
for while this was one of the blessed results of the 
appearance of the Lord, it was not the primary reason. 
The Lord Himself tells Saul why He has appeared— 
“for to this end have I appeared unto thee: to appoint 
thee a minister and a witness both of the things where¬ 
in thou hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will 
appear unto thee: delivering thee from the people, and 
from the Gentiles, unto whom I send thee, to open 
their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light 
and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may 


Three Answers to the Same Question 197 

receive remission of sins and an inheritance among 
them that are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26: 
15-19). The Lord appeared unto Saul that He might 
appoint him to the exalted position of the apostle 
unto the Gentiles. An apostle must be one who had 
seen the Lord Jesus Christ. This qualification is ex¬ 
pressly stated in the words of Peter, as he talks to the 
one hundred and twenty regarding the successor to the 
apostle Judas, when he says: “Of the men therefore 
that have companied with us all the time that the Lord 
Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the 
baptism of John unto the day that he was received 
up from us, of these must one become a witness with 
us of his resurrection. And they put forward two, 
Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, 
and Matthias. And they prayed and said, Thou, Lord, 
who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two 
the one whom thou hast chosen, to take the place in 
this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell 
away, that he might go to his own place” (Acts 1:21- 
25). It is here clear that one, to be a minister in the 
sense that he was an apostle of the Lord, must be one 
who had seen Jesus Christ after He had risen from 
the dead, and one who could, therefore, with the rest 
of the apostles, be witnesses concerning Him. “We 
know that he is the Son of God, because we have seen 
him after his resurrection.” And for this reason, 
in the words of the Lord Himself, had He thus, in this 
amazing manner, appeared unto him who was to be 
the greatest of all the apostles, that He might give to 
him, as a precious gift, that great commission which 
in all his after life was the very foundation of all 
that he said and did. Everything in the life of Saul, 


198 


The Resurrection Gospel 


from this very hour on, centers in his conversion, in 
the appearance to him of Jesus as the enthroned 
Messiah and King. How many have missed the whole 
point here, have missed the big thing in the reason for 
this miraculous appearance of the Lord to the soul 
of the future apostle. 

That the primary purpose of our Lord’s appearance 
to Saul was not for the purpose of converting him 
is further established by the other words spoken on the 
occasion. After telling Saul that He has manifested 
Himself to him that He may make him an apostle to 
the Gentiles, He says unto him: “Rise, and enter into 
the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must 
do” (Acts 9:6). Here the Lord actually appears 
unto a man and refuses to tell him what to do to be 
saved from his sins, but sends him into the city, tell¬ 
ing him that there a man will tell him what he must 
do in order to get rid of his sin. And why, think 
you, did the Lord thus treat Saul? The answer is 
found in the fact that, since the death of our Lord and 
the establishment of His church, He has left in the 
hands of men the glorious task of telling the gospel 
to the ends of the earth. Men are to tell men what 
to do to be saved. 

And so it was that Saul arose and continued his 
journey to the city. How different was the end of this 
memorable journey from its beginning. How strong 
and haughty was Saul as he left the city, how filled 
with threatenings and breathing out slaughters upon 
all them who call upon the name of Christ. And 
now, like a feeble old man, he is led by the hands of 
his companions, for he is blind. Oh, to think of the 
horror of it! To be thirty, a university man, with all 


Three Answers to the Same Question 199 

the best of life before you, with every possibility for 
advancement in your chosen line, and then to be 
stricken blind! Never more to see the faces of loved 
ones! Never again to have one’s soul regaled by the 
beauties of God’s world! To be forced to turn one’s 
eyes inward and to see only the naked things of the 
soul! Thus he was led to a quiet little home in the 
city, the home of one called Judas, in the street 
called Straight, where for three days in his blindness 
he did not eat nor drink. Three days, and alone and 
blind! Can you imagine the horror of those three 
days? Three days, and after he had seen the Lord 
Jesus, and had learned to know of a certainty that 
he was all wrong in his thinking, and that he was a 
persecutor of that Messiah for whose coming he had 
been so anxious and in whose service he had thought 
himself so ardent! Three days, when in the imagina¬ 
tion of his anguished soul he could hear the cries of 
little children as their mothers are torn from them 
to be bound and led away to prison! Three days, in 
which he, at every turn of the sightless eyes, can see 
only the blood-stained faces of those who—better men 
than he had ever been—had died rather than renounce 
that which to them was dearer than life itself! Three 
days of anguish, of horror so deep and maddening 
that at last he could endure it no longer and his soul 
broke forth in entreaty to the Lord who had promised 
him relief, if he would but come to Damascus! We 
can but imagine his prayer: “0 Lord, Thou didst 
promise me that if I came here, Thou wouldst send to 
me the messenger who would tell me what to do, 
that the weight of my damning sins might forever fall 
from me, and that in Thee I might be pure again. 


200 


The Resurrection Gospel 


Send Thou the messenger, 0 Lord, that I may hear.” 
Some such prayer as this must have fallen from those 
lips which but yesterday had spoken only words of 
hate concerning this One to whom now he bows in 
penitence. And then came to him the messenger of 
the Lord. After telling him that it was the will of 
Christ that he should receive once more his sight, the 
preacher told Saul what to do to be saved from his 
sins. He gave him the message which the Lord had 
promised Saul would be given when he had come to 
the city. And is it not wonderful that the mes¬ 
senger told him to do but one thing, and one 
alone? And what was that command? Did he tell 
him to believe on the Lord Jesus? Nine out of ten 
of the modern teachers would have told him that very 
thing. Believe?—to a man like Saul of Tarsus, who 
had seen the glorified Lord. Why, an answer of this 
kind would have been an insult to one in the mental 
and spiritual condition of Saul. And yet I have seen 
men as broken up as was this man, and as full of faith 
in the Christ as he was, coming to the front in evan¬ 
gelistic meetings only to be told that they should 
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. No, the answer 
was not to believe, because Saul was already a believer 
in the deity of Jesus. Why did he not tell him to 
repent? This was the answer that was given to the 
three thousand of Pentecost. Repent?—to a man like 
Saul, who for three days in blindness had been endur¬ 
ing the torments of the condemned. Repent?—to a 
man who had almost lost his mind in those days as 
he thought of the awful sins he had committed. Such 
an answer as this would have been positively wicked; 
for if ever on God’s earth there was a penitent man, 


Three Answers to the Same Question 201 

that one was Saul. The answer given, therefore, is 
one which meets the state of mind in which Saul finds 
himself, a penitent believer in the Lord Jesus Christ; 
for he is told by Ananias: “Arise, and be baptized, 
and wash away thy sins, calling on his name” (Acts 
22:16). Just one thing is he told to do, and that the 
thing he has not so far done—to arise and obey the 
Lord in his appointed command. Is there not here a 
hint as to the absolutely imperative importance of 
baptism? The Lord sends Saul into the city, that he 
may be told to do the one thing further necessary for 
the washing away of his sins. His faith and repentance 
alone were insufficient. He must do this thing which 
brings us finally to the cleansing blood of the Lord 
Jesus Christ. And so it is that Saul arises and is bap¬ 
tized, and partakes of food and is strengthened. 

Conclusion. 

A brief recapitulation will bring to our minds once 
more the law to be followed in understanding the three 
seemingly contradictory answers to the same great 
question. The jailor was told to believe on the Lord. 
He believed, he repented and he was baptized. The 
three thousand were told to repent and be baptized. 
They believed, they repented, and they were baptized 
into Christ. Saul was told to arise and be baptized 
and wash away his sins. He believed, he repented and 
he was baptized. In a word, they all obeyed the same 
great law of the Lord, the compliance with which 
makes us saved men and members of his Kingdom. 
The difference in the three cases is the same. Each 
man was in a different position from the others when 
he asked the question. The jailor was an untaught 


202 


The Resurrection Gospel 


unbeliever; the three thousand were believers, but im¬ 
penitent believers; while Saul of Tarsus was a peni¬ 
tent believer in the Lord when he asked the question. 
The answer in each case meets the state of mind of 
the individual who asks it. Some are nearer the Lord 
than others, and the answer, therefore, must be that 
which applies to one who has already gone part of 
the way. 

And so there are some in the audience to-night who 
are very far from the Kingdom. To them we would 
give the answer given to the jailor. Others there are, 
and perhaps a far larger number, who believe in 
Christ, but as yet they are not willing to forsake sin 
and obey Him. To these we would give the answer 
given to the three thousand. Still others there are who 
believe and who are honestly trying to forsake sins. 
To such we would give the answer given to Saul: 
“Arise, and obey the Lord without further delay.'' 
In a word, the whole lesson of the sermon and the 
exhortation is that this very hour you do that which 
so far you have not done and receive the blessings 
which always come to the obedient. 


IX. 

A MODEL CASE OF CONVERSION 


Beading. —Read carefully Acts 8: 26-40. 

Text. —“And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from 
the same scripture, preached unto him Jesus.”—Acts 8: 35. 

T HE story of this conversion is, like all the others 
recorded in this wonderful book, an illustration of 
the working out of the great commission of our Lord. 
It is, in a word, an execution of the commission. The 
Book of Acts is a book of conversions. It is a book in 
which we are told what men and women did in the 
days of the apostles and evangelists of our Lord, in 
order to become saved men and women, and in order, 
thereby, to enter into the church which Jesus had 
founded and which He loved so much that He died for 
it. The book, therefore, is the first one on church his¬ 
tory. Now, if we to-day do what these men of the 
long ago did, we will become now what they became 
then, and the same blessings which were theirs then, 
when they complied with the divine conditions, will 
become ours now. The great law of induction into 
the kingdom of God has not been changed; no one 
has had the authority to change it. It is exactly the 
same now as it was then. This conversion is the 
clearest in detail of any that are recorded in the 
book, and, best of all, illustrates this very law of 

203 


204 


The Resurrection Gospel 


redemption of which we have been speaking. We 
have, therefore, called it a 4 ‘model case of conversion .’’ 

Now, if, in reading the lesson, you have noted care¬ 
fully, you will have observed that there are five agents 
mentioned in this conversion: the angel of the Lord, 
the Holy Spirit, Philip the evangelist, the Ethiopian 
officer and the Lord Jesus Himself. We propose in 
this sermon simply to inquire as to the work of each 
of these agents in the conversion, for thus can we 
find out just what was the work of the Divine and 
what the work of the human in bringing a soul to the 
salvation in Christ which we all so earnestly desire. 

I. The Work of the Angel of the Lord. 

What is an angel? The Greek word angelos in the 
Bible, literally translated, means “a messenger of 
God.” I used to think that an angel was a white 
being with golden hair and long wings. This is the 
artistic conception, and it is wonderful how much our 
views of the Word of life have been influenced by the 
conception of the artist. In the sense that he is a 
messenger of God (though he does not look like the 
artistic conception of the angel, and perhaps does not 
always act like such a white-robed being would act), 
Brother Taubman is an angel. So it was that a 
messenger of the Lord, or an angel, ‘ ‘ spake unto 
Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto 
the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza: 
the same is desert” (Acts 8:26). Here it is expressly 
stated just what the work of the angel in this con¬ 
nection was: to speak to the preacher and command 
him to go toward the south unto the Jerusalem-Gaza 
highway. In a word, the work of the angel—and 


A Model Case of Conversion 


205 


remember that the angel represents the Divine in this 
conversion—is to get the preacher and the man who is 
to be converted together, in order that the gospel 
may be preached and that the man who is a sinner 
may hear it and believe it and obey it. The angel 
does not say a single word to the convert. There are 
many who are waiting for some manifestation of 
divine power to be given them in some miraculous 
experience before they accept the gospel of the dear 
Lord. Here in this New Testament case the divine 
manifestation is made to the preacher, and not to the 
convert at all. 

Philip immediately obeys the command of the 
messenger of God, and by making a rapid journey of 
about fifty miles south comes at last to the Jerusa- 
lem-Gaza highway, a Roman paved road running 
straight southwest from Jerusalem fifty miles to the 
city of Gaza. As soon as he reaches this highway 
he sees a man, evidently of high estate, riding along 
in a chariot and busily engaged in reading a scroll. 
At the sight of the gentleman thus reading there 
comes to Philip an intimation that here his mission 
is to be fulfilled, that this must be the one whom he 
has come so far to find for Christ. He is thus in the 
rear of the chariot, which is rapidly drawing away 
from him down the road, when the second agent in 
the conversion appears upon the scene, in the person 
of the Holy Spirit. 

II. The Work of the Holy Spirit in the Conversion. 

In one short sentence is the work of the Holy 
Spirit explained: “And the Spirit said unto Philip, 
Go near, and join thyself to this chariot ” (Acts 8: 


206 


The Resurrection Gospel 


29). He does not tell Philip what to do when he 
comes to the chariot, for well he knew that there 
would be no need to tell one of such evangelistic 
passion as that which possessed Philip to preach 
Christ. Philip would do that whenever the chance 
presented itself, and the angel and the Spirit repre¬ 
senting Divinity knew that all that was necessary was 
to make the opportunity for the God-intoxicated dis¬ 
ciple of the Lord. The only thing, therefore, which 
the Spirit does is to get Philip and the officer together, 
for well does He know that Philip will do the rest 
of his work and in a great and effective manner. 
Here, then, we have an interesting thing to remember. 
The work of the angel and that of the Spirit, in this 
model case of conversion, are identical: to get the 
preacher and the convert together. The Spirit does 
not say a single thing to the man to be converted. 
There are many in our time who have long been 
passively waiting for some word from the Spirit of the 
living God that He may come in a direct way and 
convert them. He never has done this, and there is 
nowhere a promise that He will ever do it. In this 
clear-cut case in the New Testament He speaks to the 
preacher, and tells him simply to go and join himself 
to the chariot. The work of the Divine is to get the 
preacher and the sinner together, that the gospel may 
be preached, and by the convert heard, believed and 
obeyed. Ever since the inauguration of the new dis¬ 
pensation the task of converting the world has been 
left in the hands of men, under the guidance of the 
Spirit of the living God. It has pleased God “by the 
foolishness of preaching’’ to save men from their sins, 
and in this case the plan must be carried out; hence 


A Model Case of Conversion 


207 


Philip the evangelist is sent to the officer that he may 
tell him the life-giving story. 

III. What Was the Work of the Evangelist? 

1. First of all, who was he? 

He was not an apostle of the Lord, but was an 
evangelist. The word euangelistou means ‘'one sent 
forth on a special mission.” It comes from the word 
euangelizo, meaning “to send forth.’’ Philip, there¬ 
fore, was in a sense a special messenger of the Lord. 
While every preacher of the gospel is an evangelist, 
there is nevertheless a special order of men in the 
church whose office is that of telling the story from 
place to place, and this man Philip was an evangelist; 
he belonged to this exalted order of God’s servants. 
It is not probable that Philip was formally set apart 
or ordained to this special work, but, rather, that he 
began it under the stress of special circumstances. 
There was an apostle by the same name, but it is 
clearly stated that the apostles remained in Jerusalem 
(Acts 8:1). He was, however, a deacon in the church, 
one of those mentioned as the first ones to be chosen, 
for he was one of the seven (Acts 21:8). 

2. Notice his work in the conversion. 

We have already found that he obeyed the word of 
the angel, and have followed him until the Spirit 
told him to join himself to the chariot of the officer. 
One verse tells us how eagerly and enthusiastically he 
obeyed the Spirit. “And Philip ran to him, and 
heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, 
Understandest thou what thou readest?” (Acts 8:30). 

(1) “And Philip ran to him.” What eager haste, 
what enthusiasm for the cause of the Lord, what earn- 


208 


The Resurrection Gospel 


estness for the salvation of souls, is manifest in this 
act of Philip! Oh that we could get men and women 
of our day to run after folks for the Lord! The 
greatest trouble with the church in evangelistic efforts 
to-day is that we are not really and vitally interested, 
as men, in the souls of our fellows. We need to run 
after them with that earnestness and determination 
and enthusiasm which will compel them to give the 
gospel a hearing; for if they will but give it a hear¬ 
ing, it will bring them to Christ Jesus. 

The officer turned to Philip a puzzled face, and yet 
there was relief in his tone as he politely answered 
the equally polite question: “How can I, except some 
one shall guide me!” And he “besought Philip to 
come up and sit with him” (Acts 8:31). Intuitively 
sensing the fact that this stranger, who so abruptly 
accosted him on the public highway, was evidently 
acquainted with the very book which he is so unsuccess¬ 
fully reading, he immediately invited him to climb into 
the chariot and explain the whole matter. Hence, 
Philip climbed into the chariot, took the scroll from 
the hands of the officer, and read the Scripture which 
had been puzzling the traveler. “Now the passage 
of the scripture which he was reading was this, 

He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; 

And as a lamb before his shearer is dumb, 

So he openeth not his mouth: 

In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: 
His generation, who shall declare? 
for his life is taken from the earth” (Acts 8:32, 33). 
This is the passage which had brought the puzzled 
look to the face of the officer, for he asked: “I pray 
thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, 


A Model Case of Conversion 


209 


or of some other?” (Acts 8:34). Here is the oppor¬ 
tunity which Philip desired. What a text he had! 
For these words refer to the suffering and the humilia¬ 
tion of the Lord Jesus, whom this man did not know, 
but whom to know aright is indeed the life eternal, 
and in the question which Philip had asked him he 
had found immediately the religious position of the 
man. If he was Jew, he would not understand this 
prediction, for the Jews were unwilling to apply it to 
the Christ. They looked for Him to come as a mighty 
temporal potentate, with great armies and with a scep¬ 
ter of earthly power. This verse would therefore 
be the last one which they would use concerning their 
king to come. If the man was a believer, however, 
he would at once understand the meaning of the 
passage, hence the question of Philip, “Do you under¬ 
stand what you are reading?” was for the purpose of 
determining the man’s religious position. In the next 
verse of the record, therefore, we are told of Philip’s 
answer. “And Philip opened his mouth, and begin¬ 
ning from this scripture, preached unto him Jesus” 
(Acts 8:35). 

(2) He began at the same text and preached Jesus 
unto the officer. How much is condensed in this verse! 
How much is implied in these words of the inspired 
writer! “He preached unto him Jesus!” That 
message, so much neglected to-day, was the message 
to the longing, hungry soul of the man from the 
southland. Not fads and theories, nor social gospels, . 
nor ethical movements, but the glorious news of Jesus 
the Savior, who had come that He might redeem men 
from sin, and present Him to the Father in the eternal 
Kingdom. 

14 


210 


The Resurrection Gospel 


And what would one preach if he preached Jesus 
to a man who never in his life had heard of Jesus? If 
you were in the same position and were to meet one 
who never had known of Jesus, what would you preach? 

a. First of all, he would preach the facts concern¬ 
ing Jesus. He would preach the great facts of the 
gospel of Christ. He would tell the officer of the birth 
of Jesus in the manger, of the baptism in the Jordan, 
when the Father had publicly acknowledged Jesus as 
His Son in whom He was well pleased. He would tell 
him of the power of Jesus: how He had turned the 
water into wine at the happy marriage feast of Cana 
of Galilee, how He had healed the sick, how He had 
cast out demons, how He had given the power to walk 
unto the lame, how He had cleansed the leper, and how 
He had raised the dead. He would tell him of that 
wonderful time when Jesus had walked upon the 
waters, and when at His calm command those waters 
had ceased their thundering, and the winds their 
shrieking, and where there had been tumult and 
storm there came a great calm. He would tell him 
of the gathering opposition until at last the multitudes 
turned against the Lord, and He was brought to trial. 
In tones of sorrow he would tell of the condemnation 
of Jesus, and, at last, of His terrible death upon 
the cross for the sins of the world. In deepest anguish 
he would tell of all the gibes which were hurled at 
Him there, as, in sorrow and bitter suffering, He paid 
the awful debt. But then the tone would change as 
the preacher would relate the story of that gladsome 
morning when from the tomb the Savior came forth 
the conqueror over death, hell and the grave, forever. 
In a word, the preacher, if he preached Jesus, would 


A Model Case of Conversion 211 

preach the great facts which prove that without a 
doubt this Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living 
God and the Savior of the world. Paul tells us that 
these three great facts are the facts of the gospel when 
he writes to the Corinthians: “Now I make known unto 
you, brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, 
which also ye have received, wherein also ye stand, 
by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word 
which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain. 
For I delivered unto you, first of all, that which also I 
received: that Christ died for our sins according to 
the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he 
hath been raised on the third day according to the 
scriptures’’ (1 Cor. 15:1-5). These are the three 
great facts which prove the divinity of Christ, and 
they are the first facts which must always be preached 
to the unconverted man. The religion of the Lord is 
based upon great and indisputable facts, and the first 
appeal of the gospel is always to the intellect and 
through the intellect to the heart. 

b. Now, in the second place, not only would the 
preacher preach the facts of the gospel, but he would 
also preach the great commands of Christ to sinful 
men. It is not sufficient to prove to a man that Jesus 
is the Christ, the Son of God, and the Savior of the 
world, but those commands which Jesus gave, the 
obedience to which will bring the sinner into covenant 
relationship to God through Christ, must be preached, 
if the whole gospel is to be proclaimed. No man can 
preach Jesus without preaching the commands of Jesus. 
And since Philip was a gospel preacher, I am sure that 
to this man, so eager to know the truth and without 
the blindness and hard-heartedness of prejudice, he 


212 


The Resurrection Gospel 


preached those great requirements of the Lord. And 
what were some of the positive requirements? First 
of all, the officer must believe in the divinity of Jesus, 
and we have already noted that Philip was doing the 
proper thing to bring this faith into his heart. He was 
preaching the facts of the gospel, and this would 
bring faith, for “belief cometh of hearing, and hear¬ 
ing of the word of Christ’’ (Rom. 10:17). Then, 
also, the Lord had commanded the officer to repent of 
his sins; and that Philip preached this, there is not a 
shadow of doubt. There is no salvation without repen¬ 
tance, and repentance means to be sorry enough to 
quit our sins. On Pentecost Peter told his conscience- 
stricken hearers that they must “repent, and be bap¬ 
tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ 
unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive 
the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Jesus 
had spoken, and with His usual powerful emphasis, 
of the necessity of repentance when He had said: 
“Except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner 
perish” (Luke 13:3). And so, if this gospel preacher 
of old did as all the rest of the servants of the Lord 
had done, he preached with all his power to the officer 
on the absolute and imperative necessity of repentance. 

Now, in the third place, not only would Philip 
preach repentance for the remission of sins, but he 
would also preach to the officer the necessity of making 
the good confession. In the Authorized Version of our 
New Testament, the good confession is stated, and the 
fact mentioned that the officer made it; but our 
modern study of the book has shown that this, with¬ 
out a doubt, is an interpolation. It is significant, 
however, even if this is an interpolation, that there 


A Model Case of Conversion 213 

should have been an interpolation of this character. 
At the time the verse was written in, it was the custom 
for all those who became members of the family of 
God, by faith in Jesus Christ, to confess that faith, in 
the presence of witnesses, and the scribe, or whoever it 
was that wrote in the good confession, knowing this 
custom, assumed that the officer did the same thing. 
And that he did it we can not, with reason, doubt. 
Paul speaks of this confession and of its necessity 
in the great plan of salvation when he writes to the 
Romans: “Because if thou shalt confess with thy 
mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart 
that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: 
for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; 
and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” 
(Rom. l0:9, 10). And how wonderful is the thought 
which comes to our minds, when we read the words 
of our dear Lord on this same theme: “Every one 
therefore who shall confess me before men, him will I 
also confess before my Father who is in heaven. But 
whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also 
deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10: 
32, 33). There can be no doubt but that Philip, the 
gospel preacher, in preaching Jesus to the hungry 
soul of the officer, preached to him that he must, before 
men, confess his faith in this Jesus. Not only would 
he, if he preached the commands of Jesus, preach the 
necessity of faith and of repentance, and of making 
the good confession, but the preacher, if he preached 
Jesus, would also preach the imperative necessity of 
being baptized into Jesus. This also is a great and 
positive command of our Lord. One of His very last 
commands was that to be found in the words of the 


214 


The Resurrection Gospel 


great commission: “Go ye therefore, and make dis¬ 
ciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name 
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: 
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even 
unto the end of the world’’ (Matt. 28:19, 20). That 
Philip preached baptism to the officer is clearly mani¬ 
fest by what happened later on in the conversion. We 
shall note this as we progress with our study. There¬ 
fore, in summing up, we find that, in preaching Jesus 
to the officer, Philip preached the commands of Jesus, 
or those requirements of Jesus which must be fulfilled 
in order that the sinner may come to the application 
of the cleansing blood of Jesus. We find that, in 
preaching these commands, he preached the necessity 
of faith in Christ, of repentance toward Christ, of con¬ 
fession of his faith in Christ, and of baptism into 
Christ. 

c. Now, in the third place, not only would the 
preacher in preaching Jesus preach the facts and the 
commands of Jesus, but he would also preach the 
exceeding precious promises of Jesus. How rich 
they are, and how consoling to the weary and heart¬ 
broken soul. And what were these promises? 

(a) The remission of sins was one of them. We 
have already noted, in our study of Acts 2:38, that 
Peter had told the three thousand of Pentecost that, 
if they repented and were baptized, they would re¬ 
ceive the remission of sins. How precious must this 
word have been to the soul of the officer. There has 
been but one religious problem in all the history of 
man, and that problem the remission of sins. How 
to free from sin is the most burning question which 


A Model Case of Conversion 215 

has tormented the races of the world. And that there 
had been this same struggle in the soul of the 
officer we have every reason to believe. At last 
here was a promise, here was the solution to the age- 
old problem. In Christ he could be free from his 
sins. 

(6) And then another promise which would bring 
delight to the wondering soul of the hearer was that 
of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Not only would the 
Lord forgive and remember his sins no more, but 
He would give unto the obedient one the power to live 
the new life, and that power enter come through His 
Spirit, which would come as an indwelling guest, to 
be forever in the heart of the Christian. He was not 
to be left desolate and alone to fight the battle of the 
world, but he was to have an ally in the presence of 
the holy Comforter, who would “be with him for ever.” 

(c) In the last place, the promise of an eternal 
home in the heavens was given to the officer, if 
he would but obey the Lord. And what a promise 
this was! In company with all other men who had 
ever thought upon these things at all, the officer had 
wondered about immortality. To him oft had come 
the question, “If man die, shall he live again?” And 
though there had ever been somehow the feeling in his 
heart that it must be so, and that beyond the solemn 
portals of the grave there must be an endless day, yet 
there was nowhere any promise of this fact. But here, 
at last, was a promise, and it was not builded upon 
words. For here was one who could promise because 
He Himself had gone down into the darkness and 
silence of the grave, and had come back a conqueror. 
Because He had conquered, He had the right to 


216 


The Resurrection Gospel 


say: “Let not your heart be troubled: believe in God, 
believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many 
mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you; 
for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and 
prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will 
receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may 
be also” (John 14:1-4). With what joy must the 
officer have received these words of the Master, as 
preached by Philip. Here were the three great prom¬ 
ises meeting the three greatest needs of man—the 
remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the 
promise of eternal life. 

What a sermon this was as they rode along the 
highway through the hills on either side and across 
the streams toward the old city of Gaza. What a ser¬ 
mon of truth, and what experience it brought to the 
attentively listening eunuch as Philip preached unto 
him the facts and the commands and the promises of 
Jesus. 

IV. What Did the Officer Do? 

1. In the first place, he listened, with all his heart, 
to the words spoken by the preacher. He had been 
puzzled and he desired to know the meaning of all 
these words. His interest had deepened by rea¬ 
son of the fact that he was already a religious man. 
He had been to Jerusalem to worship, and this shows 
that he was either a foreign-born Jew or a Jewish 
proselyte. It is most probable that he was a foreign- 
bom Jew, for it was a frequent thing for such to 
attain to high positions in the governments of the 
nations in which they were born. His interest in the 
passage, therefore, was a genuine one, for he was by 


A Model Case of Conversion 217 

nature and training a religious man. The fact, also, 
that the case of Cornelius is much emphasized in the 
Book of Acts, as the first Gentile conversion, seems to 
add force to our contention here that this man was a 
Jew born in a foreign land. And so, because he was 
interested, he listened with all his power to the ser¬ 
mon of Philip, because he did want to understand it 
all and therefore he would pay the strictest attention. 

2. Not only did he listen to the words of Philip, 
but he believed what he heard. Doubtless in Jerusa¬ 
lem he had heard of this Jesus, although he did not 
think of Him as the Messiah, and he, as did all the 
Jews, looked forward to the coming of that Messiah 
who was to redeem Israel. That the events of the cru¬ 
cifixion, and all that had happened then, had reached 
his ears there is every reason to believe; for he had but 
recently been right among those who had witnessed 
these things and in the scenes where they had been 
enacted. Therefore, as Philip preached, he had 
doubtless been thinking of these very stories which 
he had heard in Jerusalem. While it is not expressly 
stated that he believed, his subsequent actions make 
this fact so plain that we can confidently affirm that, 
with all his heart, he believed in the divinity of the 
Lord Jesus. 

3. In the third place, not only did the officer hear 
and believe the gospel, but, as they are traveling along 
the road, he suddenly interrupts the sermon of Philip 
with a strange request. As they were traveling along, 
in the words of the record, “they came unto a cer¬ 
tain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is 
water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” (Acts 8: 
36). In a word, he interrupts the message of Philip 


.218 


The Resurrection Gospel 


with the request that he be baptized immediately. 
This shows that Philip had preached unto him the 
-commands of the Lord, and one of those commands 
was that he should be baptized. And right here, the 
very first thing he desires after hearing of Jesus is to 
be baptized into Jesus. How different he is from 
some of our people of to-day. Seemingly the very 
last thing they want is to obey the Lord in baptism. 
What eagerness there is in the tone of the officer. 
He wants to obey the Lord and he does not want to 
put it off at all. He was indeed a man of faith, for a 
man of faith is always one who is willing to do what 
the Lord commands him, and without any question¬ 
ings about it. 

4. In the fourth place, not only did the eunuch 
hear the gospel, and believe it with all his heart, and 
not only did he request baptism, but, in the words of 
the writer of Acts, “he commanded the chariot to 
stand still: and they both went down into the water, 
both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him” 
(Acts 8:38). There are many things that Philip 
might have said to the officer when this sudden re¬ 
quest for baptism came from him. He might, for 
instance, have said unto him: “Why, my brother, 
this is the first sermon you have ever heard in all 
your life, and do you now desire so soon to accept it? 
Your people believe something else, and they are sure 
to be much exercised over this precipitate action of 
yours. What will your grandfather say? And your 
parents? Will they not be overcome with anger that 
you have come all this distance only to renounce the 
ancient faith of your fathers for this new religion, 
•saying that a crucified Jew is the long-expected 


A Model Case of Conversion 219 

Messiah? And then, you do not know all the rules of 
the church, her creeds and catechism. Do you not 
think, therefore, in view of these things, that you 
would do well to postpone your decision for a time?” 
How glad we are to-day that Philip did not say all 
these things to the officer, but, rather, that just as 
soon as he knew the desire of his hearer, he com¬ 
manded the chariot to come to a halt, and right there 
they both went down into the convenient waters and 
“he baptized him.” Here is a man of action, one who, 
when he sees the truth, is ready and eager to obey it; 
and here is a preacher who does not for a moment post¬ 
pone his part in helping the anxious soul to obey the 
Lord who had done so much to make it all possible. 

“And he baptized him.” Who was baptized, 
Philip or the officer? Is not this a silly question? 
And yet I have heard it asked again and again. Not 
only so, but I have heard supposedly educated min¬ 
isters of the gospel say that it was impossible to deter¬ 
mine just who was baptized in this case. In a plain 
effort to delude their followers were these ridiculous 
words said. A story comes to mind just here. Two 
ministerial gentlemen were walking together one day 
and were discussing this very passage. Said one to 
the other: “My brother, that verse in the eighth 
chapter of Acts has always been a puzzling one to me. 
It says that ‘he baptized him.’ Now, who was bap¬ 
tized, Philip or the officer?” “Ah, yes!” replied his 
friend, “you are right; that verse has also bothered 
me, for I have never been able to find just who was 
baptized.” An old negress, with a basket of clothes 
upon her head, was walking just a few feet in front 
of the two reverend gentlemen, and, overhearing the 


220 


The Resurrection Gospel 


conversation, she turned and very timidly said: “If 
yo’ will pawdon me, Ah think Ah can tell yo’ who was 
baptized in dat connection.” “All right, Auntie,” was 
the condescending reply, ‘ ‘ go right ahead and tell us; for 
we are anxious to know.” “Well,” she replied, “I ain’t 
got no lamin’; but it has always appeahed to me dat 
de one dat wanted to be baptized was probably de one 
dat was baptized, sah.” And did not auntie answer 
the question? The one who needed it and the one who 
wanted it was probably the one who received it. Per¬ 
mit here another illustration of this passage which you 
will never forget as long as you live. I am reading 
now just as it is in the New Testament, with a few 
changes. “A long-haired farmer was walking down 
the street. On his way he met a bald-headed barber. 
Said the long-haired farmer to the bald-headed barber: 
‘I desire a hair-cut.’ Said the bald-headed barber to 
the long-haired farmer, ‘If thou hast fifty cents, thou 
mayest.’ And he said, ‘I have the fifty cents!’ And 
they both went down into the barber-shop, both the 
long-haired farmer and the bald-headed barber, and he 
cut his hair. Now, who got the hair-cut?” The man 
who wanted it and the man who needed it was the man 
who received it. The French New Testament, though 
it has not been translated exactly, has nevertheless 
made it absolutely clear when it says: “Et Philippe 
baptisa I’eunuque ”—“and Philip baptized the 
eunuch. ’ ’ 

But sometimes we hear another objection: “Brother 
Kellems, how could the officer have been baptized there 
on a desert? It plainly states that the place was a 
desert; and no one could have been baptized in a 
desert, for there is never water enough on a desert to 


A Model Case of Conversion 221 

baptize anybody.’’ This thought was doubtless in the 
mind of a man at a prayer-meeting one time where 
this passage of Scripture was under discussion. One 
brother arose, and, explaining the verse, said: “In the 
east every chariot in ancient times carried a jug of 
water, for the places where water might be secured 
were few and far between. And in this case, since 
the chariot was being driven over the desert, the 
officer was baptized from the water in the jug.” 
Another gentleman, who happened to know the Scrip¬ 
ture, arose and said: “I will read the passage with the 
idea in it as expressed by our good brother to-night. 
‘As they went on their way they came to a certain 
jug, and the eunuch said, See, here is a jug; what 
doth hinder me to be baptized? And he commanded 
the chariot to stand still, and they both went down 
into the jug, both Philip and the eunuch; and he 
baptized him.’ ” Of course the reading provoked a 
roar of laughter. But, after all, perhaps it was a jug. 
If it was, however, this we know about it, that it was 
big enough for them both to go down into it when the 
baptism took place. 

But regarding the desert. The Greek word eremos 
does not mean “a desert” as we think of a desert, 
as a vast expanse of sand where there is no water at 
all. It many times means merely a sparsely inhabited 
portion of the country. In the New Testament it fre¬ 
quently has this meaning, for it is stated that there 
were conditions present which we never think of in 
connection with a desert. In the feeding of the five 
thousand, for instance, in the fifteenth verse of the 
fourteenth chapter of Matthew, we are told that the 
place was desert, and in the nineteenth verse of the 


222 


The Resurrection Gospel 


same chapter, in describing what took place, Matthew 
says: “And he commanded the multitudes to sit down 
on the grass. ” In referring to the same incident, 
John says: “And there was much grass in the place” 
(John 6:10). There has been much confusion re¬ 
garding this statement concerning the desert, and 
many of the older writers and preachers found consola¬ 
tion in this for their views regarding baptism. Many 
were the arguments made from it to show that it 
was utterly impossible for the eunuch to have been 
immersed. To-day, however, we have found that there 
is no desert between Jerusalem and Gaza, and that 
there has never been. I can not refrain here from 
quoting Professor McGarvey regarding the road 
which Philip and the officer traveled. “Much error 
and confusion concerning this way, or road, is found 
in the older commentaries, which were written before 
the recent thorough exploration of the country; but 
these, and especially the actual surveys made by the 
Palestine Exploration Fund of Great Britain, have 
cleared up the subject by showing that there was a 
Roman paved road leading from Jerusalem direct to 
Gaza, some traces of which are still visible, though 
the route, in the roughest part, is now impassable for 
vehicles. This road is laid down on the great map of 
Palestine made from the surveys, and can be easily 
traced by any one in possession of the map. The 
whole distance from city to city is about fifty miles, 
and the direction from Jerusalem is nearly due south¬ 
west. Some five or six miles from the latter city 
the road begins to descend from the central ridge, 
which it follows that far, through a rough and narrow 
ravine called Wady el Mesarr, into Wady es Sunt, 


A Model Case of Conversion 223 

known in the Old Testament as the valley of Elah. 
After traversing this valley a few miles nearly due 
south, the road turns to the west, and rises through 
another wady to the level of the great Philistine plain, 
which it follows the rest of the way to Gaza. This 
passage along the mountain ravine must be the part 
called desert, for all the rest of the way the road 
passes through the midst of villages, pastures, and 
cultivated fields; that is, it did so when the country 
was well populated. If Philip’s path intersected the 
road in this desert, he traveled due south from the 
city of Samaria, and passed to the west of Jeru¬ 
salem, all in compliance with the angel’s direction.” 1 

But, after all, the real explanation of the word 
“desert” is not to be found in the condition of the 
country between the two cities at all, but rather in 
the condition of old Gaza. “There is nothing in the 
construction of the Greek sentence which would at all 
indicate that the word ante (this or the same) refers 
to Tiodon (the road or way). It may just as well 
refer to lazan. There is nothing, therefore, in the 
original to indicate that the road from Jerusalem to 
Gaza is meant when the word ante is used. The word 
autos generally refers to the nearer noun, and ekeinos 
to the one farther away. Now, ante (feminine), if 
autos is used, would regularly refer to Gaza, whereas 
if it meant the ‘way’ or road, a very accurate writer 
would have used ekeine. If, therefore, Gaza is femi¬ 
nine (and I presume it is), then in my judgment it 
refers to that. The translation is, then, ‘this [not 
which] is desert.’” 2 


1 “Oommcctary on Acts,” p. 157. 

*Dr. John Straub, Professor of Greek, University of Oregon. 



224 


The Resurrection Gospel 


In further explanation of this position, which will 
be to many a very strange one, I wish to make a 
somewhat extended quotation from that truly epochal 
work of Dr. George Adam Smith, 4 ‘Historical Geog¬ 
raphy of the Holy Land. M1 Referring to Gaza, he 
says: “Gaza never lay within the territories of early 
Israel, though Israel's authority, as in Solomon's 
time, and temporary conquests, as in Hezekiah's, 
might extend to her gates; and this is to be explained 
by the prestige which Egypt, standing immediately 
behind, cast upon her. Under the Maccabees, as we 
have seen, Jewish armies carried fire and sword across 
Philistia. Ekron and Ashdod were taken, and Aska- 
lon came to terms, and, after Jonathan had burnt her 
suburbs, Gaza was forced to buy him off. It was not 
till 96 B. C. that Jews actually crossed her walls, but 
in that year the pent-up hatred of centuries burst 
upon her. Alexander Janneus, taking advantage of 
the withdrawal from Syria of the Egyptian troops, 
invested Gaza. After a year's siege in which the 
whole oasis was laid waste, the town itself was cap¬ 
tured by treachery, its buildings burned, and its people 
put to the sword. Gaza, to use the word which is 
echoed of her by one writer after another for the next 
century, lay desert. In 62, Pompey took Gaza, now 
called a maritime city—like Joppa—from the Jews, and 
made it a free city. In 57, Gabinus rebuilt it, cer¬ 
tainly on a new site, and possibly close to its harbor, 
which all through the Greek period had been growing 
in importance. In 30, Gaza, still called a maritime 
city, was granted by Caesar to Herod, but at the 

1 “Historical Geography of the Holy Land,” George Adam Smith, pp. 
185, 186. 



A Model Case of Conversion 225 

latter’s death, being Greek, as Josephus says, it was 
again taken from the Jews, and added to the imperial 
province of Syria. ‘New’ Gaza flourished exceedingly 
at this time, but the old or desert Gaza was not for¬ 
gotten, probably not even wholly abandoned, for the 
trunk road to Egypt still traveled past it. In the 
Book of Acts, in the directions given to Philip to meet 
the Ethiopian eunuch, this is accurately noted: ‘Arise, 
and go toward the south, unto the way that goeth 
down from Jerusalem to Gaza; this is desert.’ Most 
authorities connect the adjective, not with Gaza, but 
with the way; yet no possible route from Jerusalem 
to Gaza could be called desert, and this being so, and 
several writers* of "the period immediately preceding 
having used this phrase of the town itself, it seems 
that we are not only encouraged, but shut up to the 
same reference here. If new Gaza, as is probable, lay 
at this time upon the coast, then we know that the 
road the Ethiopian traveled did not take that direction, 
and in describing the road it was natural to mention 
the old site—desert, not necessarily in reality, but 
still in name—which was always a station upon it. 
That Philip was found immediately afterward at 
Ashdod suggests that the meeting and the baptism took 
place on the Philistine plain, and not among the hills 
of Judea, where tradition has placed them. But that 
would mean the neighborhood of Gaza, and an addi¬ 
tional reason for mentioning the town.” 1 

But I believe the Scripture, and the Scripture tells 
us that they “both went down into the water, both 
Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him” (Acts 

1 Polun chronon epemous (Josephus XIV. Antt. V. 3) ; menousa eremos 
(Strabo XVI. 2-30) ; and he eremos Gaza (the anonymous Greek geographer 
in Hudson’s Geographies veter. script. Grceci Minores IV. p. 39). 

15 



226 


The Resurrection Gospel 


8:36). The Greek word is amphoterols , followed by 
the little word te, meaning “both,” making it doubly 
emphatic. This construction would not have been used 
at all save for emphasis. The idea to be emphasized 
is that they both went down into the water, in order 
that the baptism might take place. Now, there must 
have been water enough for them both to have gone 
down into, or the statement would never have been 
made by the inspired writer. The same reason which 
prompts us to go down into the water to-day when we 
baptize a man doubtless prompted them to go down 
into it then. But one objects: “Brother Kellems, 
do you not think that they might have gone down into 
the water, and then have had water sprinkled or 
poured upon the head of the eunuch?” Yes, they 
might have done that. Is that the way you did it 
when you had water poured upon you? “No, I did 
not do it that way.” Well, then, if they were right, 
you were by your own confession wrong, for you did 
not do it as you claim they did it. No, the reason is 
manifest, and it is so clear that there can be not 
even the shadow of a doubt about it; they went down 
into the water because to do what they wanted to do 
they needed both to be in the water. Paul tells us 
what they did in the water, when, in speaking of bap¬ 
tism, he writes to the Colossians: ‘ ‘ Having been buried 
with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised 
with him through faith in the working of God, who 
raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:12). The officer 
went down into the water in the likeness of the burial 
of the blessed Lord, and from those waters he was 
raised into a newness of life in Christ, in the likeness 
of the Lord’s resurrection. 


A Model Case of Conversion 227 

Now, regarding the place where the officer might 
have been baptized, I can do no better than once 
more to quote from Professor McGarvey: “The first 
natural water to which they came, unless it were a 
spring on the wayside, was the brook which flows 
through the valley of Elah, the brook which David 
crossed in going forth to meet Goliath. It is a moun¬ 
tain stream, which goes dry in the summer, but flows 
with a strong current through the winter and the 
spring. Such streams always wear out pools here and 
there suitable for baptizing. If the chariot had already 
crossed this stream when the eunuch requested baptism, 
there was another in the Philistian plain, now called 
Wady el Hasy, which Robinson, the first to institute 
any intelligent inquiries on this subject, fixed upon 
as the place of baptism. It is a perennial stream, 
and suitable for baptizing at any season of the year. 
It is not at all improbable, however, that the real 
place of this baptism was one of the many artificial 
pools with which the country abounded at that time, 
and the ruins of which are found in every section. 
The rainless season of seven months, which is ex¬ 
perienced there every year, made it necessary, 
when the country was filled with people and flocks 
and herds, to make extraordinary provision of water 
for stock, and for irrigating the summer crops: and 
no country was ever so well supplied in this way as 
Judea.” 1 

To sum the matter up, then, the eunuch heard 
the gospel, believed it, and immediately obeyed it He 
was a man of decision, who, when he heard the truth, 
was willing without any hesitancy to accept it. 


1 "Commentary on Acts,” pp. 157, 158. 



228 


The Resurrection Gospel 


V. What Did the Lord Do for the Eunuch? 

He did just exactly what He said He would do. 
He always does this. We can trust Him, for He never 
breaks His word. He had promised the officer the re¬ 
mission of sins. Let there be no question, therefore, 
but that the sins of the eunuch were forever forgotten 
and that he was from henceforth cleansed. The Lord 
had also promised him the gift of the Holy Spirit, 
and from this time on that Spirit, as an indwelling 
Comforter and Helper, “the hidden man of the 
heart,” was present with him, helping him to live the 
Christ life. Then, too, the Savior had promised that 
there should be, for the officer, a home eternal in the 
heavens, one not made with hands, but one whose 
builder and maker is God. That home was to be his 
when the time came for him to embark upon the 
journey on the deep, dark river. Through the purple 
mists of death, from this very day onward, he could 
see the shining light which comes from that wondrous 
city where they need no light of the sun by day, for 
in it the Lamb is forever the Light. The Lord ful¬ 
filled His promises, and it is no wonder, therefore, that 
the last picture we have of the officer is one in which 
he continues on his way rejoicing. 

Conclusion. 

How plain and simple is the path to Christ. We 
wonder that it should ever have been made so difficult 
that, from the clear road to the cross, it should have 
been converted into a veritable maze. Here we find so 
clearly set forth the conditions of salvation by our 
Lord: that one must hear the gospel and believe it 


A Model Case of Conversion 229 

and obey it if he is to be saved. There is no wonder 
that the last view of the officer which the inspired 
writer gives us is one in which he “goes on his way 
rejoicing.” He had great reason for joy. He now 
understood the passage of Scripture which had been a 
source of stumbling to him, and the understanding 
of it had brought to him a glorious new hope. He 
now had the consciousness of the forgiveness of sins, 
and this was based, not upon an intangible feeling 
which might be produced in many other ways, but 
it was based upon the positive word of the Father, 
and that word will never fail. He had the consciousness 
also of the gift of the Holy Spirit within him as a 
guest and guide. No wonder, then, that he rejoiced, 
for now he could go back to his land in the south with 
the story of life to tell to his friends and loved ones. 
Is it possible that the churches which later on sprang 
up, in the south, were due to the conversion of this 
man? Who can ever tell? But one thing certain, 
there could be none better able to bring the message 
with such convincing power than this one, who in his 
religion found such joy. 

And, in this, is there not a mighty lesson for us 
to-day? Christianity is a religion which brings joy 
to the heart. But note that it comes after we obey the 
Lord and not previous to our obedience. It is an evi¬ 
dence that we have obeyed Christ, and not that we 
should obey Him. Many there are who are waiting 
for a great flood of joy to come into their hearts, and 
when that comes, they say they will obey the Lord. 
In every New Testament conversion the happiness 
always came after those converted had obeyed Christ. 
Long-facedness is not an evidence of religion. Rather 


230 


The Resurrection Gospel 


is it an evidence of the lack of true Christianity; for 
Christianity is a religion of hope and joy. And this 
certainly should characterize the child of the Lord 
to-day, that he rejoices in the faith which is his 
because of the hope and consolation which it brings. 

A brief summary of the conversion will be proper. 
The work of the angel and the Spirit was clear: to 
get the preacher and the convert together. The 
preacher when he came preached Christ—His facts, 
commands and promises. The eunuch heard, believed 
and obeyed, and the Lord kept His promise in that 
He forgave his sins, gave unto him the gift of the 
Holy Spirit and the home eternal. 


X. 

THE NON-CONVERSION OF FELIX 


Text. —“But after certain days, Felix came with Drusilla, his 
wife, who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul, and heard him concern¬ 
ing the faith in Christ Jesus. And as he reasoned of righteous¬ 
ness, and self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix was ter¬ 
rified, and answered, Go thy way for this time; and when I have 
a convenient season, I will call thee unto me.”—Acts 24: 24, 25. 

Introduction. 

T HE Book of Acts is a book of conversions. It is 
really the first book on church history. In this 
book we learn how men and women became Chris¬ 
tians in the days of the apostles of the Lord. We see 
how the commission of the Christ was executed by 
those whom He had called from the various walks of 
life to be His ambassadors to the lost world. The 
way of salvation is made so plain, by these cases as 
recorded in Acts of Apostles, that no one need make 
a mistake in the solemn business of the salvation of his 
soul. 

Not only is the Book of Acts a book of conversions, 
but it is also a book of non-conversions. We are not 
only told of how many gladly accepted the Word of 
life, and became followers of the blessed Lord, but we 
are also told how some refused the message of hope, 
and the reasons are given for that refusal. The apos¬ 
tles of the Lord were not always successful. There 

231 


232 


The Resurrection Gospel 


were times when they could do nothing at all because 
of the opposition of the enemies of the Christ. This 
thought has often been of great strength to me. There 
have been times in my ministry when I worked with 
all the ardor at my command, when I did all within 
me to bring men to a saving knowledge of the truth 
of God, and yet seemingly nothing was accomplished. 
Beware of the preacher who never fails. The apostles 
failed once in awhile; and the case which we are to con¬ 
sider in this message is one in which the magnificent 
effort of the apostle Paul brought no results. 

The event which is the basis of our sermon to-day 
followed immediately after Paul’s brilliant defense 
before Felix. So powerful was that defense that 
Felix had sent the accusers away, and had ordered 
that Paul be treated with indulgence. The plans of 
his enemies were thus, for a time at least, thwarted, 
and Paul’s friends were allowed to visit him. Per¬ 
haps it was but an idle desire to know this man more 
intimately that caused Felix to summon him, that he 
might hear him concerning the faith which is in Christ 
Jesus. At any rate, Paul was called and the oppor¬ 
tunity given him to say what he wished concerning his 
position, or concerning the faith which had brought 
him to this place. 

ARGUMENT. 

I. The Character of Felix. 

In order that we may better understand the 
message as delivered by Paul, let us for a moment 
consider the character of his audience. What kind 
of a man was this one who sat there before the 
great apostle to listen to him? What were the emo- 


The Non-conversion of Felix 233 

tions which surged through him as he called the man 
of God into his presence? 

First of all, Felix was an adulterer. At this very 
time he was living in open and scandalous sin. The 
beautiful woman by his side was Drusilla, the daughter 
of Herod Agrippa, the brutal and egotistical king 
who had murdered the apostle James, had persecuted 
the church of God and had so miserably perished 
afterwards. Evil blood was in her veins, for she 
came from the family which more than any other had 
been the enemies of the Lord Jesus. She had.been the 
wife of Aziz, the king of Emesa, but Felix, through 
the schemes of a certain sorcerer, Simon by name, 
had induced her to leave her husband and come to 
him. She was but twenty years of age and one of 
the most celebrated beauties of her age. Thus the 
memory of their rotten sin was a veritable stench 
in the nostrils of all the people. Though a ruler, 
Felix was living in insolent calculated wickedness. 

But the sin of adultery was but one of the many 
awful sins of an awful life. Felix was corrupt to the 
very heart! He was depraved and godless to an almost 
unmentionable degree. Tacitus says of him that, 
“with every kind of cruelty and lust, he exercised the 
authority of a king and with the temper of a slave. ’ ’ 1 
Farrar gives a vivid description of him: “He had been 
a slave in the vilest of all positions, in the vilest of 
all epochs, in the vilest of all cities. He had crept 
with his brother Pallas into the position of a courtier 
at the most morally degraded of all courts. He had 
been an officer of those auxiliaries who had been the 
worst of all troops. What secrets of blood and lust 


1 “Commentary on Acte,” McGarvey, p. 239. 



234 


The Resurrection Gospel 


lay hidden in his life we do not know; but ample 
and indisputable testimony, both Jewish and pagan, 
sacred and secular, reveals to us what he had been: 
how greedy, how savage, how treacherous, how un¬ 
just, how steeped in the blood of private murder and 
public massacre, during the eight years he had spent 
as the governor, first of Samaria and then of Pales- 
time. ’ ’ 1 Felix had risen from the position of a slave 
in the court of Agrippina, the mother of Nero, to the 
position of a governor. Thus, before Paul was the 
typical Roman pagan, a man without God and without 
conscience, a degraded beast in the form of a man. 

II. The Sermon Preached by Paul. 

As Paul faces Felix and Drusilla, what are his 
thoughts? These people can exert influence which may 
save his life. Does there come to him the temptation 
to speak soft words of flattery? Does it even enter 
his mind to use this golden opportunity to purchase 
his escape? Ah! here is the test of the real preacher. 
Here is the ordeal by fire. Never was the courage of 
the apostle so clearly manifest as on this occasion. 
Paul was filled with but one great desire, and that to 
tell the story to all men, rich and poor, high and low, 
learned and unlearned, good and bad. Thus without 
a moment of hesitation he launches into his message. 
And what a message it was! So earnest and power¬ 
ful, so Spirit-filled, so pulsating with life and inspira¬ 
tion, so terrible in its warning, that the mighty walls 
of the heart of Felix crumbled, as a fortress crumbles 
under the impact of a great modern shell! In the 
words of the author of Acts, there were three divisions 


1 “Life of Paul,” p. 550. 



The Non-conversion of Felix 235 

of the sermon: “he reasoned of righteousness, of self- 
control, and the judgment to come.” 

1. He reasoned of righteousness. 

Think of it—of righteousness to a man to whom the 
very fundamental meaning of the word was foreign! 
What knew Felix of righteousness? What cared he 
for purity of life? His life had been one long and un¬ 
interrupted dissipation. His desires had been satisfied 
at all costs. His passions had run riot. There was 
no purity in him. How could a man who could plan 
to take another man’s wife from his home think of 
righteousness? How strange and startling must have 
sounded the words of the apostle to a man whose 
soul was filthy with sins and all uncleanness! And to 
think of the courage of Paul! Here he dares to speak 
of Felix as a sinner. In imagination I can almost 
hear his tones of warning as he tries to bring Felix 
to a realization of the enormity of his sins before God. 

2 .He reasoned of self-control. 

What must have been the thoughts of Felix as the 
pure-souled man of God before him reasoned of self- 
control or temperance ? His own life rotten with 
adultery, and the beautiful woman beside him, the 
partner in his sin, the glaring reminder of a life of 
unbridled passions, of uncontrolled lusts! He had 
never controlled himself, and to him a message of this 
nature was the newest and most astounding thing he 
had ever heard. What kind of a man was this, any¬ 
way? Whence came such audacity? Where got he 
such courage, that, even though a prisoner, he dared 
thus to denounce his ruler for his sins? What a 
tumult of emotions must have surged through the 
soul of the sinner as the sermon proceeded! 


236 


The Resurrection Gospel 


3. He reasoned of the judgment to come. 

Ah! but Paul was a preacher. How well he 
knew the soul! How artistic was he in the arrange¬ 
ment of his message! The denunciation of sins, fol¬ 
lowed by the solemn warning of the impending judg¬ 
ment! He clinches his argument with this. Not only 
is Felix a vile sinner in the presence of God and man, 
but there is a time to come when Felix and all men are 
to stand before the judgment-seat of Christ and answer 
for the deeds done in the body. And how terrible will 
be that judgment to him who has known nothing of 
self-control, and to whom the very meaning of the 
word ‘ i righteousness’’ is a stranger! The terrors of the 
judgment were set before him, with all the power at 
the command of the great apostle. What a sermon! 
All honor to the bravery of the man who delivered it. 
No better argument can be given for the genuineness of 
the religion of Christ to the heart of Paul than this 
sermon. He was preaching no ethereal tale. His 
message was not a pyschic Christ, a phantom Savior 
who never did really save a soul. His was a faith so 
mighty, so real, so ever present, that his own life was 
nothing compared to the telling of it on every occasion, 
for men were awful sinners. To him they were going 
the downward way to eternal loss, and he alone knew 
the power which could save them. 

III. The Effect of the Sermon. 

And what was the effect of the burning message? 
Did the shot go home? Did the sullen and hardened 
heart remain unaffected by the terrible thunders of the 
mighty broadside of truth? 


The Non-conversion of Felix 237 

1. And Felix was terrified. 

Ah! the shot did go home. Felix was terrified. 
And no wonder! As he thought of his past life, so 
filled with uncontrolled lust, so sinful and debauched, 
it is not to be wondered at that his teeth chattered as 
though his frame was racked by a horrible fever. “As 
he glanced back over his stained and guilty past he 
was afraid.” There were footsteps behind him and 
he began to feel as though the earth was made of 
glass. What a testimony to the mighty power of the 
word of God, when preached by one who is on fire for 
the success of the divine message, is the effect of this 
sermon on a sinner like Felix! He was terrified, 
shaken like a leaf in the wind, unsettled as though 
an awful explosion had taken place in his life. 

2 .He sends Paul away. 

“And Felix was terrified, and answered, Go thy 
way; and when I have a convenient season, I will 
call thee unto me.” In these brief words the Divine 
Spirit tells us the rest of the story. Felix abruptly 
terminates the conference. Can you not imagine the 
scene? As he shakes with terror he suddenly inter¬ 
rupts Paul with the agonizing cry: “I have heard 
enough. I can not bear more now, Paul. Cease thy 
words and leave us. Go thy way, and there will be a 
better time; there will come a moment when I can 
hear thee again. Then do I give thee my promise 
that I will call thee. But go thy way for this 
time, for I can not stand more now.” Palsied like an 
old man, he leaves the audience-chamber and goes out 
again into his world of sin, a damned soul. 


238 


The Resurrection Gospel 


CONCLUSION. 

I. Why Was Felix Not Converted? 

1. Because he allowed his lust and ambition to 
smother the fires of conscience which had been set 
burning by the sermon of Paul. 

These very fires of conscience, burning for the 
first time in his wicked, adulterous soul, marked the 
beginning of a change of life for him. Had he only 
allowed them to burn on until they should bring him in 
agony of repentance to throw his burden on the 
Lord! But he was too deeply steeped in sin. His 
lust was too strong, he could not give up his sins. If 
he accepted Christ, it meant that no longer could he 
live as he had been living, no longer could he be the 
kind of ruler he had been. 

2. Felix was not converted because he deferred his 
decision to a more convenient season, which never did 
and never would come. 

It would never be a convenient thing for him to 
put away the beautiful woman with whom he had been 
living in sin. It would never be a convenient thing 
for him to revolutionize a whole life, and especially a 
life so depraved as his. It is never convenient to re¬ 
pent. 1 ‘ Repentance is the very antithesis of con¬ 
venience. The man who repents throws convenience 
to the winds. He sacrifices convenience and pride, and 
decides to do right. To the wicked man, the act of re¬ 
pentance is always a wrench in his life. It can not 
come smoothly and with ease. There must be a battle, 
and Felix was not man enough, he was not strong 
enough, to enter the battle.’’ 


The Non-conversion of Felix 239 

And Felix never found it convenient. He went on 
and on with his wicked life, becoming worse and worse 
to the end. The day when in terror he listened to the 
awful words of Paul was the highest moment in his 
life. Had he but known it, had he but accepted the 
loving Savior whose invitation that day was so gra¬ 
ciously extended to him, what a different end to the 
story there might have been! But he refused it all, and 
from that very day onward he went lower and lower 
until at last there came to him a death of sorrow and 
disgrace. After his experience with Paul, the Jews 
preferred charges of misgovernment against him, and 
he was recalled to Rome. Here, after a very narrow 
escape from death, he lived for a short time, and then 
was exiled to Gaul, where he died in misery and dis¬ 
grace. Drusilla clung to him to the last, perhaps the 
most gracious thing she had ever done. A son, who 
was afterwards killed in the eruption of Mount 
Vesuvius, which destroyed the cities of Pompeii and 
Herculaneum, was born to them. The story of Felix is 
the old, old story; for all men of this kind end the 
same way. The word of the long ago—how true it is 
and always will be, “The wages of sin is death!” 

II. The Excuse of Felix Was Only an Excuse to 
Hide the Real Reason for His Refusal to 
Accept Christ. 

It has always been the way of the sinner. He gives 
what he calls a reason for his disobedience, but it is 
not a reason. Very few men give the real reasons why 
they do not accept the Savior. It is human nature to 
desire to justify one’s self if possible. The real reason 
was deeper than the mere surface excuse. That reason, 


240 


The Resurrection Gospel 


in the case of Felix, as in the case of thousands to-day, 
was a reluctance to put away sin. 

Ah! here is the real reason. Felix was a sinner, 
and he did not want to quit his sin. He had gone so 
far that he did not want to repent. And is that not the 
real trouble with men to-day? They do not want to 
be saved. I fear much preaching fails because we 
tell men what to do to be saved, when the majority 
of them are not really concerned about salvation at 
all. A conscience concerning sin, this is the need of 
the hour. One of the saddest characteristics of our 
modern day is the declining sense of the exceeding sin¬ 
fulness of sin. There are many who would like to 
come into the church for the social position it would 
give them, for the air of respectability which they 
could then wear, if they could drag their sins in after 
them. Frequently we have talked with young people 
who say: “We would come into the church if we 
could drag the dance with us. If we can do what we 
please, then we will come.” 

How well do I recall an experience here in the 
beautiful State of California! A woman came to the 
minister and myself one evening after the service. 
She was in an agitated frame of mind. That she 
was very nervous was evident by the restlessness which 
she could not control. “I do so want to accept Christ 
as Savior, Brother Kellems.” We pleaded with her to 
come that night. “Madam, you do not need to leave 
this house, even though the service is closed, without 
making it right with God. Why not confess your 
Lord and Savior and do it now? You can, this night, 
be baptized into His name and go on your way re¬ 
joicing.” After a seemingly bitter struggle, she re- 


The Non-conversion of Felix 


241 


plied: “No, I can not do it now. But I will give my 
promise that when I return from a two weeks’ journey 
which I am beginning to-morrow, I will accept the 
Lord and Savior .’’ Our further urgings were of no 
avail, for she had made up her mind. She was gone 
the two weeks, and in two weeks to a day she re¬ 
turned. But she did not return to confess Christ. 
When she came again, it was to her own funeral. 
In a machine driven by a crowd of drunken men and 
women, of whom she was one, she was instantly killed 
by a fast express train. She had known of the debauch 
ahead of her when she talked to us that night, but 
she did not have the courage to give it up and 
turn to the Lord. 

And so it ever is. The excuse “a more convenient 
season” is given to hide our real reasons—a reluctance 
to give up sin, a lack of courage to live the Christian 
life, or mere indecision. There is but one end of the 
way called “a more convenient season,” and that end 
is death. When you are tempted to think in these 
terms, when you are tempted to procrastinate, remem¬ 
ber the non-conversion of Felix. 


16 


XI 


THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCHES 

Text. —“And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and 
upon this roek I will build my church; and the gates of Hades 
shall not prevail against it. ”—Matt. 16: 18. 

I N these words our Master, in answer to the con¬ 
fession of Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of 
the living God,” gives us the principles which will 
solve every fundamental difficulty which shall ever 
beset the church. His church is to be builded upon a 
rock, and as it is builded upon a rock it shall be 
eternal. Times may change, different constructions 
may be placed upon the gospel, various Christologies 
may arise, but His church, firmly builded upon a 
mighty rock, shall endure triumphant. Even the 
gates of the unseen shall not be able to prevail against 
it. That rock was not to be Peter, a little rock 
(petros), but petra, a tremendous mountain, an awe¬ 
inspiring Gibraltar of rock. The difference between 
the two words, one masculine, the other feminine, is 
the difference between a little stone and a great ledge 
of rock. The misapprehension of the character of the 
rock has been the fruitful source of division and 
strife among those who, more than any other people 
in the world, should dwell together in unity. The rock 
is only indirectly the confession of Peter. It is the 
truth of the confession, or, better still, the person con- 
242 


The Origin of the Churches 243 

fessed, Jesus Himself. Paul understood this when he 
wrote: “For other foundation can no man lay than 
that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3: 
11). Christ Himself is the rock upon which the church 
is builded. Oh that men had realized this through 
the years; that they could have understood with Paul 
that only as we build upon the divine foundation can 
we have unity and peace and power to work His will 
in the world! Only as we build upon the divine 
foundation can we keep pace with the ever-changing 
conditions of thought in which men live and move and 
have their being. Peter, upon whom, as a little rock, 
men have tried to build the church of Christ, himself 
denied that he was the rock when, speaking of Christ 
as the foundation stone which the builders rejected, 
he says: “The stone which the builders rejected, the 
same was made the head of the corner” (1 Pet. 2:7). 
At last, in this modern time, after almost two millenni¬ 
ums of trying other foundations, men are turning as 
never before to the simple New Testament attitude: to 
our Lord Jesus Christ as the only foundation upon 
which a united, progressive and efficient church of 
Christ can be builded. 

The title of this address, or, better, essay, though it 
was delivered in the form here written as a public 
address, is, in a sense, misleading. It were indeed a 
presumptuous thing to attempt a history of almost 
two thousand years of Christianity on the earth, in one 
sermon. We are not therefore concerned about all the 
intricacies of the history of the various sects and 
divisions in the body of Christ, but will confine our¬ 
selves to a study of those elements which arose in 
the church, resulting at last in the formation of the 


244 The Resurrection Gospel 

Roman Catholic organization, and later on in the 
Protestant denominations. For there is a widespread 
ignorance of these things to-day. Men are wanting 
to know just why it is that we have so many denomi¬ 
nations, when we love the same Bible and worship the 
same Lord Jesus Christ. We can never understand 
the how of Christian unity until we understand the 
how of division. I am convinced that a consistent 
study of church history would go far toward bringing 
about the lost unity of the body of the Lord. Hence 
we will consider here the rise of those elements which 
have resulted in a divided church. 

I. As a Preliminary to Our Study, Let Us Consider 

Briefly Some of the Outstanding Character¬ 
istics of the Church of Christ as It Is 
Described in the New Testament. 

1. That there was a New Testament Christianity no 
real student of the New Testament will deny. 

Thoughout the blessed volume there beats upon us 
a mighty religious life, a life the like of which had 
never been seen in the world before; a life so glorious 
and powerful that it transformed the known world. 
And it is to be remembered that the New Testament 
did not produce that life. It was the result of that 
life, and had it not been for the fact that the church 
was in existence, and the life was being experienced 
and lived by thousands, the New Testament would 
never have been. And yet, the New Testament ex¬ 
hibits that life to us to-day and with great fidelity. 
Its chief characteristics are described with clarity, 
and the reason for its existence gleams in glory from 
almost every page. It is possible, then, to understand 


The Origin of the Churches 245 

what the New Testament church was. We will ever 
have a pattern to which we can refer, when we would 
know how the first Christians thought, moved and 
lived their life in Christ. That we may understand the 
great apostasy and the attempts of the reformers to get 
back to the true standard, it is necessary that we 
understand the place and significance of the primitive 
New Testament church in the world. 

2. Some of the general characteristics of the church 
as they are exhibited in the New Testament. 

(1) The church was founded by the Lord Him¬ 
self and is known as His church. This fact is estab¬ 
lished by the verses which we have alluded to before 
in our consideration of the text. The statement of the 
Master that He would found an organization to be 
known as His church arose upon the occasion of His 
conversation with His disciples in the parts of Caesarea 
Philippi, when He asked them: “Who do men say 
that the Son of man is?” Peter, with the keen eye of 
faith, replied, after they had said that the people were 
divided about the answer to the question, some think¬ 
ing that He was John the Baptist, others Jeremiah and 
others Elijah, saying the words with which His name 
will ever be associated as long as the world stands: 
“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living Gud.” 
“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art 
thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not 
revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 
And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and 
upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates 
of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16: 
17, 18). The church was to be built by Him and it 
was to be His. Those who were to belong to it were 


246 


The Resurrection Gospel 


to be a holy people, bought by Him at a tremendous 
price. They were to be called out of sin, by Him, to 
a holy service. This is the meaning of the word 
ekklesia (church—the called out of God). 

(2) Christ Himself was to be the foundation of His 
church. It was not to be on this or that Christology, 
or this or that interpretation of Him, or this or that 
creed about Him, that the church was to be founded, 
but upon Christ Himself as Lord and Savior, as divine 
Son of the living God. How many troubles would 
have been saved the church had men only realized that 
the foundation was not to be some interpretation 
petrified into a creedal statement, but the living and 
exalted Lord. This is the meaning of the already 
quoted words of the apostle to the Gentiles: “For 
other foundation can no man lay than that which is 
laid, which is Jesus Christ’’ (1 Cor. 3:11). He 
further affirms the same great fact when to the Ephe¬ 
sians he writes: “So then ye are no more strangers 
and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the 
saints, and of the household of God, being built upon 
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ 
Jesus himself being the chief corner-stone” (Eph. 2: 
19, 20). This, as we have already discovered, was the 
meaning of our Lord when He referred to the rock 
upon which His church is to be built. Not a dead rock, 
but a living rock, that rock to which Paul referred 
once more when he says: “And they did all eat the 
same spiritual food; and did all drink the same spirit¬ 
ual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that fol¬ 
lowed them: and that rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10: 
3, 4). When all the present church of Christ eats 
and drinks of the same spiritual rock and builds upon 


The Origin of the Churches 247 

that rock, then will the lost unity of His church be 
restored in splendor and glory. 

(3) The church was established in the city of 
Jerusalem A. D. 29, under the guidance of the Holy 
Spirit and the ministry of the apostles. That this was 
to be the time and place was a matter of prophecy. 
“And it shall come to pass in the latter days, that the 
mountain of Jehovah’s house shall be established upon 
the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above 
the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many 
peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to 
the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of 
Jacob; and he will teach us his ways, and we will walk 
in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law , and 
the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem” (Isa. 2:2-4; 
Mic. 4:1, 2). Jesus also affirms that Jerusalem shall 
be the place of the beginning of the new order which 
shall be known as His church. “Thus it is written, 
that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the 
dead the third day; and that repentance and remission 
of sins should be preached in his name unto all the 
nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46, 47). 
Eepentance and remission of sins in His blood could 
not be preached until He had died and shed His blood 
and had been raised from the dead. Then, upon the 
foundation of such facts, could the new dispensation 
be ushered in. The writer of Acts further attests the 
fact that Jerusalem is to be the place of beginning 
when he says: “And, being assembled together with 
them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, 
but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, 
said he, ye heard from me: for John indeed baptized 


248 


The Resurrection Gospel 


with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit 
not many days hence” (Acts 1:4, 5). 

The church could not be established until the 
coming of the Spirit, the new Comforter and Guide. 
Now, in the second chapter of Acts we have the 
record of the coming of the Spirit and the first gos¬ 
pel sermon. It is in Jerusalem, on Mount Zion, that 
Peter, the one to whom Jesus had given the keys of 
the Kingdom, preached with mighty power the first 
gospel sermon, and for the first time in the world 
gave the conditions upon which the remission of sins 
could be obtained. All the predictions of the prophets 
were fulfilled in the time and the place. When Peter 
tells the Jerusalem Christians of his wonderful experi¬ 
ence at the household of Cornelius, he refers back to 
the day of Pentecost in the words: “And as I began 
to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us 
at the beginning” (Acts 11:15). To him and to all 
the apostles the day of Pentecost was the beginning. 
The words of Professor Fisher sum up the matter: 
“With the day of Pentecost the career of the church 
militant fairly begins. ’ ’ 1 

And is it not significant that in the place where 
Jesus had been persecuted and reviled, where He had 
done His work and had been hated as few men in this 
world have ever been hated, that He should be glori¬ 
fied in that here His church should be born? 

(4) Christ Jesus was considered by all the early 
Christians to be the Head of His church. The 
authority was not to be in a pope or council of men, 
but in Him. He Himself had said: “All authority 
hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth” 


1 "History of the Christian Church,” Fisher, p. 19. 



The Origin of the Churches 249 

(Matt. 28:18). The New Testament Christians looked 
to Him and His words as the authority. So taught 
Paul: '‘And he is the head of the body, the church: 
who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that 
in all things he might have the pre-eminence’’ (Col. 
1:18). So also in the letter to the Ephesians he 
affirms: “And hath put all things under his feet, and 
gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 
which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all 
in all” (Eph. 1:22). The authority is in Him, and 
that authority is made known to us through His word. 

(5) Christ Jesus was also the creed of His church. 
The New Testament was not the creed. The Lord 
never intended, as far as we know, that any book 
should be the creed of His people. It was never His 
desire that the faith of His people be buried in a dry, 
creedal statement. The creed of the church was the 
Christ Himself as the risen and glorified Lord. But 
we know of Him through the word of God, the Word 
which the early apostles and evangelists have left to 
us. Thus to us, to-day, the Christ as revealed in the 
New Testament is the creed of the church which He 
founded. After all, the creed of the church is the 
foundation, it is that upon which the church is builded. 
And the church was builded—can we say it too many 
times for this age of ours which is groping so anxiously 
back to the Christ of the New Testament?—upon the 
living Christ. Jesus said it Himself in that best loved 
verse in the best loved book: “For God so loved the 
world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that who¬ 
soever believeth in him should not perish, but have 
everlasting life” (John 3:16). The same great truth 
was preached to the frightened Philippian jailor: “Be- 


250 


The Resurrection Gospel 


lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, 
thou and thy house ’ 7 (Acts 16:31). The universal 
faith of the universal church was expressed in just one 
article: “I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 
the living God.” Having repented of their sins and 
having made this confession publicly, they were bap¬ 
tized into Christ, and by that act were constituted 
members of His body, or church, upon the earth. 
They were thus brought to the blood of the Lord 
which brings remission of sins, and were added to the 
church (Acts 2:37). All the blessings of reconcilia¬ 
tion, all that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit meant 
to them, they derived from their living foundation, the 
Christ in whom they had believed. 

(6) The names of the church and of the individual 
members of it were those which honored their revered 
founder. 

The names of the organization were “ church of 
God” (1 Tim. 3:5; Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 
1:1), “ churches of God ” (1 Cor. 14: 33), “ churches 
of Christ” (Rom. 16:16), “my church” (Matt. 16: 
18). All these names were such as would honor the 
Lord Jesus. They ascribed all glory and honor to Him. 

The names of the individual members of the church 
were of the same type. When they were referred to 
as learners of the Lord they were called “disciples” 
(Matt. 20:17; Acts 9:1). The very name, however, 
derives its significance from the relationship which they 
sustained as students or learners of the great Teacher. 
When the family relation is meant, they are called 
“children of God” (Rom. 8:16; Gal. 3 : 20). When the 
results of their attitude to the Lord are in mind, they 
are called “saints” or “holy ones,” for through His 


The Origin of the Churches 251 

sacrifice for them have they in Him become holy (Rom. 
1:7; 1 Cor. 14:33). When their relation to the Lord 
as obedient learners is thought of, they are always 
called “Christians” (Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Pet. 
4:16). They have become Christian ones by virtue 
of having become obedient to the commands of the 
Lord. 

(7) The ordinances as practiced by the New Testa¬ 
ment church were those which had been commanded by 
the Master and which in their observance honored Him. 
There were two of these ordinances—baptism and the 
Lord’s Supper. Baptism was the burial in water of a 
penitent believer in the Lord, in the name of the 
Father and of the Son and of the Holy' Spirit, and 
the resurrection of that one from the watery grave 
as a symbol of the three great facts of the gospel, 
which were then universally believed—that Christ 
died, that He was buried and that He had been raised 
from the dead. It was, therefore, an act which in 
every respect honored Christ in that, every time it was 
performed, it was a witness in a powerful way to the 
great facts which indisputably prove Him to be the 
Son of God. (See 1 Cor. 15:1-5; Rom. 6:4, 5; Col. 
2:12.) Baptism, therefore, in the New Testament 
church was never anything but one—a burial and a 
resurrection. Anything else than this would have 
failed utterly to show forth the significance of the act. 
To change its form would have meant to destroy its 
meaning. Paul, speaking of it, says, “There is one 
baptism” (Eph. 4:5), and it is significant that the 
one who made this statement always thought of that 
one baptism as a burial and a resurrection (Col. 3:12; 
Rom. 6:4, 5). 


252 


The Resurrection Gospel 


The Lord’s Supper, instituted by the Master on the 
very night on which He was betrayed, was an act 
the sole purpose of which was, like that of baptism, to 
honor the Lord. In speaking of the purpose of this 
institution, Paul says: “For as often as ye eat this 
bread, and drink this cup, ye proclaim [or publish] 
the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26). That 
they might do this on the day on which in triumph 
He had come forth from the grave, the early Christians 
came together on the first day of the week, which was 
known as the Lord’s Day, and assembled themselves 
around the table of the Master. Every time they did 
this they felt that they were testifying to their faith 
in the fact that He had died for their sins and that He 
was coming again. Luke says: “And upon the first 
day of the week, when the disciples came together to 
break bread, Paul preached to them” (Acts 20:7). 
The main reason for their assembly was that they might 
keep the sacred feast. The writer of the Hebrew letter 
exhorts them: “And let us consider one another to 
provoke one another unto love and good works; not 
forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the 
manner of some is, but exhorting one another; and so 
much the more as ye see the day approaching” (Heb. 
10:25). That day was the Lord’s Day, and they 
were to exhort one another to keep in mind the feast, 
its observance and its holy meaning. There is but one 
first day of the week, and that comes every week. For 
seven hundred years the church met on this day, and 
every Lord’s Day, for the observance of the Supper. 

(8) The government of the New Testament church 
was very slight. In the main there were two classes of 
officers: elders, or bishops, and deacons. Each local 


The Origin of the Churches 253 

congregation had these officers, and their authority 
was restricted to the local church alone. There is not 
a shred of evidence anywhere that they ever had any 
authority outside at all. The apostles had no suc¬ 
cessors in the sense that there were those to take their 
places. When the words of the Lord were committed 
to writing in the New Testament books, the message 
which they brought was final, and there would not be 
another. The apostles and evangelists, guided as they 
were by the Holy Spirit, had spoken the Spirit’s 
word; and from that time on, this Word was to be 
binding upon the church. To Timothy, Paul writes: 
“And the things which thou hast heard of me among 
many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful 
men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 
2:2). The words thus written in the New Testament 
were to be given throughout the generations, not to 
learned men necessarily, or to men of philosophical 
turn of mind, but to faithful men who were to teach 
others through the years. That this revelation was to 
be the last one, and was to be received and preached 
as such, is evident from many verses in the New 
Testament: “For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory 
of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth and 
the flower thereof falleth away, but the word of the 
Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which 
by the gospel is preached unto you” (1 Pet. 1:24, 25). 
“As we have said before, so say I now again, If any 
man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye 
have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:9). 
“Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write 
unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained 
to write unto you, exhorting you to contend earnestly 


254 


The Resurrection Gospel 


for the faith which was once for all delivered unto 
the saints” (Jude 3). No words can be stronger than 
these. Whatever else they signify, it is clear that in 
the mind of the apostles and early Christians the 
revelation was final. The meaning of such expressions 
as “the word of the Lord endureth for ever” and 
“once for all delivered” is unmistakable. 

The words “elder” ( presbuteros ) and “bishop” 
(episkopos) were simply two names used interchange¬ 
ably for the same officer in the local congregation. His 
authority extended to that congregation alone. The 
word episkopos means literally “a shepherd.” An 
elder or bishop, therefore, was a shepherd of a local 
flock. Paul uses the terms interchangeably in at least 
two places in the New Testament. “For this cause I 
left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the 
things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every 
city, as I gave thee charge; if any man is blameless, the 
husband of one wife, having children that believe, who 
are not accused of riot or unruly. For the bishop must 
be blameless, as God’s steward; not self-willed, not soon 
angry, no brawler, no striker, not greedy of filthy 
lucre; but given to hospitality, a lover of good, sober- 
minded, just, holy, self-controlled; holding to the faith¬ 
ful word which is according to the teaching, that he 
may be able both to exhort in the sound doctrine, and 
to convict the gainsayers” (Tit. 1:5-9). Here Paul is 
talking about the same officer and his qualifications for 
that holy office of overseer or shepherd of the flock, 
and he uses both words in speaking of him. In his 
beautiful farewell conversation with the officers of 
the church in Ephesus the apostle also uses these terms 
interchangeably. In Acts 20:17, Luke says: “And 


The Origin of the Churches 255 

from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called to him the 
elders of the church. And when they were come to 
him he said unto them.” After this follows the exhor¬ 
tation of Paul addressed to the elders of the church. 
In the twenty-eighth verse in this same exhortation, 
he says: ‘'Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the 
flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops , 
to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with 
his own blood.” Here he is speaking to elders of one 
local congregation, and he calls them bishops or shep¬ 
herds of the flock. There can be no doubt that, in 
the New Testament meaning of the terms, the bishop 
or elder was the officer of a local congregation. 

Each congregation did its own work in its own 
way, and disciplined its own members. Paul, in speak¬ 
ing of an incestuous person, tells the Corinthian church 
to “put away that wicked man from among yourselves” 
(1 Cor. 5:13). He also speaks of both classes of officers 
when he writes: ‘ ‘ Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ 
Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at 
Philippi, with the bishops and deacons” (Phil. 1:1). 
Each congregation was separate and apart from every 
other. They were indeed free churches of Christ, 
independent, yet interdependent. They were united 
by their common relation to the Lord and their com¬ 
mon debt to Him by their “common salvation.” They 
helped each other in time of need, but no church had 
any authority over another. 

(9) The rule of faith or discipline was at first the 
words of the apostles, and, afterward, those words as 
committed to writing in the New Testament. These 
books constituted a sufficient guide to faith, and needed 
not the additions of men to make them a proper rule 


256 


The Resurrection Gospel 


of life. In them Christ was made known to men, and 
Christ is not only the object of faith, but He is the 
standard as well. Everything in the life of a Christian 
is measured by Him as the standard, but the revela¬ 
tion of His will is made in the New Testament Scrip¬ 
tures. Paul speaks of these sacred writings in their 
capacity as a rule and guide of faith when he writes 
to Timothy: “Every scripture inspired of God is also 
profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for 
instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of 
God may be complete, furnished completely unto every 
good work” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). 

3. It should also be noted, before we complete our 
survey of the church as it is exhibited in the New Test ce¬ 
ment , that it was a united church. 

The New Testament not only describes this unity 
among the followers of Christ, but emphasizes the 
necessity of the continuance of that unity, if the pur¬ 
pose of Christ’s coming into the world is to be fulfilled. 
Christ Himself prayed that the unity which character¬ 
ized His disciples might never be broken: “Holy 
Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given 
me, that they may be one even as we are” (John 17: 
11). “Neither for these only do I pray, but for them 
also that believe on me through their word; that they 
may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I 
in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world 
may believe that thou didst send me” (John 17:20, 
21). In scathing language, of which he was at times 
such a master, Paul denounces divisions as wicked, and 
emphasizes the prime necessity for a continuance of 
unity among those who follow the Lord: “Now I 
beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord 


The Origin of the Churches 257 

Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and 
that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be 
perfected together in the same mind and the same 
judgment. For it hath been signified unto me con¬ 
cerning you, my brethren, by them that are of the 
household of Chloe, that there are contentions among 
you. Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I 
am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I 
of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for 
you? Or were ye baptized into the name of Paul? 
I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus 
and Gaius; lest any man should say that ye were bap¬ 
tized into my name” (1 Cor. 1:10-15). Once again 
he lashes them with almost bitter words, and yet tender 
in his yearning for their restored unity: ‘‘And I, 
brethren, could not speak unto you as spiritual, but as 
unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ. I fed you with 
milk, not with meat; for ye were not able to bear it: 
nay, not even now are ye able; for ye are yet carnal: 
for whereas there is among you jealousy and strife, are 
ye not carnal, and do ye not walk after the manner of 
men? For when one saith, I am of Paul; and another, 
I am of Apollos; are ye not men?” (1 Cor. 3:1-4). 
Whenever men have walked after men and as men, 
without the guiding of the Spirit, there has always 
been division. The Spirit and His teachings have 
never divided the church of the living God. That 
division has always been the work of men. 

The New Testament not only describes the unity 
of the church of Christ, but it also leaves no doubt 
in the minds of those who read it as to the nature of 
that unity. There is a great difference between union 
and unity. And yet frequently this difference has not 

17 


258 


The Resurrection Gospel 


been realized. Union means simply the joining together 
of two or more bodies in one body. There might con¬ 
ceivably be union without unity at all. A minister 
friend one time illustrated this by saying: “If you tie 
the tails of two tom-cats together, you will have union, 
but you will not have unity.” Union involves neither 
similarity of structure nor identity of nature, but 
unity always supposes “homogeneity, similarity, con- 
gruity, singleness, a common pervading principle or 
nature. ’ ’ 1 Thus is it always ‘ ‘ that, in a religious point 
of view, unity implies a common nature or joint rela¬ 
tion, arising from a joint participation of the Holy 
Spirit, imparting to each individual similar dispositions, 
feelings and purposes.” 2 With this position agrees 
the late Professor Denny: “To the present writer it is 
conclusive evidence that, in spite of the various modes 
of thought and feeling which the canonical Christian 
writings exhibit, there is really such a thing as a self- 
consistent New Testament and a self-consistent Chris¬ 
tian religion. There is a unity in all these early Chris¬ 
tian books which is powerful enough to absorb and 
subdue their differences, and that unity is to be found 
in a common religious relation to Christ, a common 
debt to Him, a common sense that everything in the re¬ 
lations of God and man must be determined by Him.”* 
The unity of the New Testament church was indeed 
a unity of the Spirit. This unity of the Spirit (Eph. 
4:3) means the unity which is brought into being and 
maintained by the Spirit. Those who have a common 
relation to God, who enjoy “the common salvation,” 
are those in whom similar feelings and emotions and 


1 “The Office of the Holy Spirit,” Richardson, p. 52. 

2 “The Office of the Holy Spirit,” Richardson, p. 52. 
8 “Jesus and the Gospel/’ Denny, p. 90. 



The Origin of the Churches 259 

experiences have been wrought by the Spirit of God. 
This common relation to God through Christ manifests 
itself in similar actions. Paul describes these mani¬ 
festations of unity which are brought into being by the 
Spirit of God, when he says: “I therefore, the prisoner 
in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling 
wherewith ye were called, with all lowliness and meek¬ 
ness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in 
love; giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit 
in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one 
Spirit, even as also ye are called in the one hope of 
your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one 
God and Father of all, who is over all, and through 
all, and in all” (Eph. 4:1-6). When the spirit of 
unity dwells in Christians, they will join themselves in 
one body, for they have similar experiences in Christ, 
a like love for Him, a congruous relation to God 
through Him. They have the one hope because of 
Him and a common faith in Him. There was with 
these early Christians but one baptism, because they 
had the same Spirit in their hearts, the common faith 
in the Lord in the three great facts concerning His 
death and burial and resurrection, and these could 
be manifested only by that one baptism, that one 
which showed forth His burial and resurrection. The 
one baptism, therefore, was a visible manifestation 
of that in which they stood united, a common relation 
to God through Christ. 

To conclude, then, our resume of the characteristics 
of the New Testament church as they are exhibited to 
us in the New Testament, it is evident that one attitude 
characterized everything which the early Christians did, 
thought and experienced, an attitude to Christ as 


260 


The Resurrection Gospel 


Savior and Lord. That this common relation to God 
through Christ is the fundamental thing, the universal 
faith and the principle by which the unity of the 
church was maintained is manifest in the characteristic 
elements which we have already studied. Christ was 
indeed to them “all in all”; He was Christianity. To 
them He was founder of the church, foundation of the 
church, head of the body; His name they wore before 
the world; His death, burial and resurrection they 
symbolized as they obeyed Him in baptism; the fact 
that He had died for the remission of the sins of men 
they remembered every time they met together to 
observe His Supper. He was to them Redeemer, 
Savior, Lord and Judge. In opinions about what was 
the significance of the experience which had been 
wrought in their souls as they listened to the words 
about Him, the meaning and ultimate significance from 
the standpoint of Christology of the faith which had 
been evoked within them—in all these things they 
might differ, but they were always one in their re¬ 
ligious relation to God through Him. 

II. Let Us Now Consider the Rise of Those Human¬ 
isms in the Church Which Resulted in the 
Formation of the Apostate Roman Catholic 
Organization. 

Had the churches continued in their primitive faith 
the unity which was their salvation would have con¬ 
tinued also. Left in possession of the New Testament 
books, they had a sufficient guide in all matters per¬ 
taining to faith and discipline. These books, inspired 
as they were by the Holy Spirit, would have kept them 
progressive and powerful in their “common salvation.” 


The Origin of the Churches 261 

But very early the desire of men to add to the divine 
plan was manifest, resulting, as it has always resulted, 
in confusion and division. They began to “walk as 
men,” with the result that the church of the Lord 
became carnal. We shall therefore consider the human 
elements which crept in, flowering at last in the Roman 
Catholic Church. 

1. The rise of ecclesiastical government or hierarchy. 

The first change in the apostolic plan, and one with 
tremendous consequences, was the distinction made 
between the office of elder and that of bishop. In the 
New Testament plan there was no such distinction, as 
we have already found, for the two words were simply 
two names for the same officer. After the death of the 
apostles, uninspired men began to elevate in each local 
church one elder above the others and call him by the 
name overseer or bishop. He was to be the shepherd of 
the entire flock and presiding officer at the meeting of 
the elders. In this one action began that which was to 
come forth for hundreds of years in a divided church. 
Professor Fisher speaks of this change in the apostolic 
plan: “In the New Testament, as we have seen, there 
are two classes of officers in each church, called, re¬ 
spectively, elders, or bishops, and deacons. After we 
cross the limit of the first century we find that with 
each board of elders there is a person to whom the 
name 'bishop’ is specially applied, although for a long 
time he is likewise called a presbyter. ’ ’ 1 

One of the reasons for the exaltation of one man, 
and he was generally the most able man in the church, 
the one in whom it was thought the Holy Spirit dwelt 
in the fullest degree, was that the church might be pro- 


1 “History of the Christian Church,” Fisher, p. 51. 



262 


The Resurrection Gospel 


tected against false teaching. Early was there great 
fear of heresy and of the wolves which should come 
in sheep’s clothing to deceive the elect. Jerome speaks 
of this change in the original order and the reason for 
it when, in the fourth century, he writes: “With the 
ancients, presbyters were the same as bishops, but 
gradually all the responsibility was deferred to a 
single person, that the thickets of heresies might be 
rooted out. * 11 Thus early was there afloat the idea 
that only through human authority could heresy be 
stopped. 

One of the immediate effects of the exaltation of 
the bishops was that the churches were drawn closer 
together. If a Christian desired to visit a neighboring 
city, and, while there, to be with the church, he was 
given a letter by his bishop, and on the presentation 
of this letter he was received with hospitality by the 
brethren and entertained while with them. The larger 
churches began early to organize congregations in 
their immediate vicinity, and these new flocks were 
ministered to by the elders of the organizing body, 
under the direction and supervision of the bishop of 
the mother church. In one local church, then, with its 
dependent churches ministered to by those who, under 
the direction of the bishop, were its elders, we have 
the Roman Catholic organization in miniature. If any 
member were excommunicated from a congregation, the 
bishop informed all the other bishops of the fact, that 
they might be on their guard against him. The larger 
the city, generally speaking, the stronger the church, 
and consequently the more were churches organized 
around it, and the greater the power of the bishop. 


1 “The Eight Leading Churches,” Berry, p. 18. 



The Origin of the Churches 263 

The bishops of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria were 
considered the biggest bishops of all, because these 
places were supposed to have been the seats of the 
apostles in a very important sense. They were also 
cities of the first magnitude, and, consequently, their 
bishops would be looked upon as men of great influence 
and authority. At first the term 1 ‘ archbishop, ’ 1 or 
“big bishop,’’ was applied to all the city bishops. 
These men were generally the best and brainiest men, 
and, as such, were looked up to with veneration. 
Gradually the term was restricted to the bishops 
in Rome, Alexandria and Antioch alone. The time 
came at last when they were called primates or 
patriarchs. 

In the second century, also, the bishops began to 
meet together in conventions for the discussions of the 
various problems which confronted them. These meet¬ 
ings were termed “synods.” The presiding officer was 
the bishop, and gradually all who were not bishops 
were excluded from membership. Such gatherings had 
a tremendous influence upon the church universal, for 
these men were the biggest and best men in it, and 
were supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit in their 
deliberations. They themselves made this claim, and 
it was believed by the churches. The laws, which at 
first were but resolutions, were called canons, and were 
supposed to be binding upon all of those who had had 
anything to do with passing them. Thus the uninspired 
leaders began to create a deposit of tradition, which in 
time would have as much authority as the New Testa¬ 
ment books themselves. Their claim to be guided by 
the Holy Spirit would lend power to the traditions or 
canons in the churches. 


264 


The Resurrection Gospel 


By the middle of the second century after the 
Lord had ascended to heaven, the churches were 
united under the rule of the bishops, whose powers 
grew with the years. The smaller towns gradually lost 
the right to have bishops appointed in their churches, 
and, as the years went by, the rule was more and more 
transferred to the bishops of the great cities. About 
this time, also, there came into being the first human 
name as applied to the church of Christ, for, in opposi¬ 
tion to heretical sects, the church was called the “cath¬ 
olic or universal church/ ’ 

The story of the exaltation of the bishop of Rome 
until he was acknowledged as the pope is so long that 
it can not be told here. The beginning of it, as we have 
just seen, was the unwarranted and unscriptural dis¬ 
tinction early made between the elder and bishop. 
We can here but indicate the reasons why he was thus 
exalted until he was known as the chief one in the 
church. 

(1) Rome was the capital of the empire. There¬ 
fore the Roman church was the most influential church, 
for it counted among its members some of the most 
influential people in the empire. As a city, the fame 
of Rome was world-wide. All roads led to Rome. 
The membership of the Roman church was very large, 
and the Roman congregation had established many 
churches in Italy. It was but the natural thing, there¬ 
fore, that it should be looked up to as one of the most 
influential congregations among the churches of Christ. 

(2) The Roman church had endured many persecu¬ 
tions. It seemed that the fury of the persecuting 
emperors was directed more at the Roman Christians 
than at others anywhere. The fact that the Roman 


The Origin of the Churches 265 

Christians had so suffered had exalted them and their 
bishop in the minds of the people in the outside world, 
but especially in Italy. This had a tendency to concen¬ 
trate attention upon the Roman church. 

(3) The Roman bishop had many times saved Rome 
from trouble. When the barbarians had come down 
upon the city, he had interceded for the people. All 
this conspired with other events to make him popular 
and to make the people outside think that he was the 
biggest preacher or bishop in the world. The generosity 
of the Roman Christians in relieving the needs of 
brethren far away had helped to exalt the Roman 
church also; and whatever exalted the Roman church 
exalted the Roman bishop. Accustomed to the author¬ 
ity of the bishop in the local congregations, it was not 
a hard thing for the people to begin to think of an 
authority over the church universal. 

(4) As early as 170 A. D. a tradition began to be 
repeated in Italy, that Peter had established the Roman 
church and that he had been its first bishop. There is 
nowhere any evidence that Peter ever saw Rome, but 
this story was told and accepted by many. The Roman 
bishop was therefore considered to be the successor of 
Peter, and his position was immensely strengthened by 
the tradition. By the beginning of the sixth century 
the term “papa” or “pope,” which had at first been 
applied to all the bishops in the west, was applied by 
the people of Italy exclusively to the Roman bishop. 
The first real pope was Gregory I., who reigned from 
590 to 604 A. D. 

2. The rise of human creeds in the church. 

We have discovered in our study of the New Testa¬ 
ment church that the early Christians did not try to 


266 


The Resurrection Gospel 


reduce their faith to a creedal statement; in a word, 
that they did not believe in a written creed at all. 
Their creed was the living Christ, the Savior and 
Redeemer, and they were united in their common re¬ 
ligious relation to God through Him. But about a 
hundred years after the death of the last apostle, 
uninspired men, in order to defend themselves against 
the attacks of heretics and, as they thought, to pre¬ 
serve the unity of the church, began to resolve the 
main facts of Christianity into short creedal state¬ 
ments. This short creed was erroneously called “The 
Apostles' Creed." For about fifteen hundred years it 
was thought that the apostles had composed it, but re¬ 
cent researches have utterly discredited this theory. 
The apostles had no such statement at all, but believed 
in the Christ as their creed, and the simple statement 
in the confession was deemed sufficient. This first creed 
was for the purpose of preserving unity, but it had 
exactly the opposite result. 

The conversion of Constantine to the Christian re¬ 
ligion in 323 A. D. was a momentous act in the his¬ 
tory of Christianity. Thinking that his victory over his 
rival for the throne at Milvian bridge, near Rome, was 
the direct will of the Christian God, because he had 
imagined that in the sky he had seen a flaming cross 
on which was written in Greek, “By this sign, con¬ 
quer," he adopted Christianity as the religion of the 
empire. From this time on, he converted men by 
edict, which has never been a method of converting 
them at all. The union of church and state, which 
was thus consummated, meant that the old Roman 
empire, dying, should not die, but that it should live 
on in the Roman Catholic Church. It had a further 


The Origin of the Churches 267 

tendency to consolidate the church under the power of 
the bishop at the capital. 

In 325 A. D., the first council of all the church met 
at Nice, convened by the emperor. At this council 
was adopted the first real creed of Christendom, the 
Nicene Creed. We thus have added to the simple New 
Testament church an ecclesiastical government and a 
human creed, by which all men who desire to become 
Christians are to be judged. From this time on, a 
human document is to be the standard of faith. In¬ 
stead of men believing in the Lord Jesus, and being 
united in their common faith in Him and the com¬ 
mon experience that the preaching of His life and 
words evoked within them, they are to be judged by 
an interpretation of Him as made by men. 

3. The origin of infant baptism. 

In the New Testament there is no evidence that 
any one ever became a Christian unless he was old 
enough to hear the gospel, to believe it and to repent 
of his sins. “Whosoever will may come” is the bur¬ 
den of the invitation in the New Testament. But, 
about two hundred years after Christ, a discussion 
arose among some of the bishops on the question of 
original sin. It was contended that children were born 
in sin, and that they were therefore totally depraved. 
If, then, they should die in infancy, they would be lost. 
Now, the question which logically would next arise 
would be as to the method by which this sin could be 
removed. According to the New Testament, as was 
well known by all the bishops, the sinner comes to the 
blood of Christ in his obedience in the act of Chris¬ 
tian baptism. If baptism would then bring a man to 
the remission of sins, it was contended that the infants 


268 


The Resurrection Gospel 


should be baptized. Naturally, a tremendous dis¬ 
cussion arose over it all, some favoring and some bit¬ 
terly opposing the doctrine. The first one in history 
to mention infant baptism was Tertullian, bishop of the 
church at Carthage in Africa. He did not believe in 
hereditary total depravity; hence, with all his soul he 
fought infant baptism. About the beginning of the 
third century he writes: “Our Lord says, indeed, do 
not forbid them to come. Therefore let them come 
when they are grown up. Let them come when they 
understand, when they are instructed whither it is that 
they come. Let them be made Christians when they 
know Christ.” “What need their guiltless age make 
such haste to the forgiveness of sins?” 1 Tertullian 
here holds exactly the position of the New Testament 
church. Origen, however, an Alexandrian by birth, 
believed in hereditary depravity, hence in baptismal 
regeneration. He writes: “If there was nothing in 
infants that wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace 
of baptism would be needless to them.” In another 
passage he says: “Having occasion in this place, I will 
mention a thing which causes frequent inquiries among 
the brethren. Infants are baptized for the forgive¬ 
ness of sins. Of what sins? Or when have they 
sinned ? Or how can the reason of the laver in their case 
hold good? But according to that sense we have men¬ 
tioned ev§n now, none is free from pollution, though 
his life be but the length of one day upon the earth. 
And it is for that reason, because by the sacrament of 
baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away, that 
infants are baptized. 5 ’ 2 


1 "Ante-Nicene Fathers,” Vol. III., p. 678. 

2 “The Eight Leading Churches. Berry, p. 21. 



The Origin of the Churches 269 

Thus it was that infant baptism rested upon two 
speculative and totally unscriptural doctrines: 

(1) Heredity, total depravity, or that an infant is 
born in sin, and is a sinner through and through, 
depraved in nature; and 

(2) Baptismal regeneration, or that baptism will 
take away sin, even though there be no faith. 

Those who to-day practice infant baptism, so called, 
should keep these facts well in mind, for, while it 
may be now that the act is but an act of dedication, 
it was not true at the time of its origin. It is not 
baptism and has never been in any sense baptism, for 
baptism must be the act which comes out of the very 
soul of the one baptized. 

4. The origin of substitutions for a bw'ial and 
resurrection in baptism. 

About fifty years after the rise of infant baptism— 
for it should be held in mind that the infants were im¬ 
mersed in accordance with the universal custom of the 
church—arose the first substitution for the baptism 
commanded by the Lord and practiced by the New 
Testament church as a symbol of the universal faith in 
the death, burial and resurrection. The first case in 
history of any man being poured for baptism, as a 
substitute for that which the Lord expressly com¬ 
manded, was that of Novatian, in 251 A. D. Novatian 
was ill, and the elders thought that he could not be im¬ 
mersed. What were they to do? Then came to them 
the thought that, since the Holy Spirit dwelt in them, 
what they did would have the approval of the Spirit, 
if it should not be the very work of the Spirit Him¬ 
self. They decided, therefore, to pour water all over 
him as he lay on the bed. This would take the place 


270 


The Resurrection Gospel 


of an immersion in water, but it was understood that 
if he recovered from his illness, he must be immersed. 
Hence they poured water on him as lay ill on his bed. 
Eusebius, who has been called “the father of church 
history,’’ writes of this revolutionary act: “Being 
delivered by the exorcists, he fell into a severe sick¬ 
ness, and, as he seemed about to die, he received bap¬ 
tism by affusion on the bed where he lay, if indeed we 
can say that such a one did receive it.” 1 But Nova- 
tian did not die. He recovered and became so influ¬ 
ential in the church that finally, by one party of the 
church, he was elected bishop of Rome, the highest 
office in the church. Immediately there was great 
objection because of the so-called baptism which he 
had received. Dr. William Wall speaks of this case as 
follows: “In the year of our Lord 251, Novatian was, 
by one party of the clergy and the people of Rome, 
chosen bishop of that church in a schismatical way 
and in opposition to Cornelius, who had been before 
chosen by the major part, and was already ordained. 
Cornelius does, in a letter to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, 
vindicate his right, and shows that Novatian can not 
canonically come to the orders of the priesthood, much 
less was he capable of being chosen bishop, for that all 
the clergy and a great many of the laity were against 
his being ordained presbyter; for it was not lawful, 
they said, for any one who had been baptized in his 
bed, in time of sickness, as he had been, to be admitted 
to any office of the clery.” 2 Thus the origin of 
sprinkling and pouring was purely a substitution on the 
part of the Roman Catholic officials. But Rome is 

1 “The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” Vol. I., pp. 288, 289. 

2 “The History of Infant Baptism,” Dr, William Wall, Vol. I., pp. 204„ 



The Origin of the Churches 


271 


great for precedents, and this action established a 
precedent. From this time on, therefore, in cases of 
sickness, pouring was substituted for the immersion 
of the whole body, and was called clinic (or sick 
man’s) baptism. 

That this position is true is admitted by the great 
Catholic authorities. The Catholic Encyclopedia, a 
standard of authority in things Roman Catholic, in the 
article on baptism says: “The word 'baptism’ is 
derived from the Greek word bapto, or baptizo , to wash 
or immerse.” “Three forms of ablution have prevailed 
among Christians, and the church holds them all to be 
valid, because they fulfill the requisite significance of 
the baptismal laving. These forms are immersion, in¬ 
fusion and aspersion. The most ancient form usually 
employed was unquestionably immersion. This is not 
only evident from the writings of the Fathers, and 
the early rituals of both the Latin and Oriental 
churches, but it can also be gathered from the Epistles 
of St. Paul, who speaks of baptism as a bath (Eph. 5: 
26; Rom. 6:4; Tit. 3:5). In the Latin Church, im¬ 
mersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth 
century. After that, it is found in some places even as 
late as the sixteenth century. Infusion and aspersion, 
however, were growing common in the thirteenth cen¬ 
tury, and gradually prevailed in the western church. ’ ’ 1 

The late Cardinal Gibbons speaks in the same strain 
when he says: “For several centuries after the 
establishment of Christianity, baptism was usually 
conferred by immersion, but since the twelfth century 
the practice of baptizing by infusion has prevailed in 


1 "The Eight Leading Churches,” Berry, p. 49. 



272 


The Resurrection Gospel 


the Catholic Church, as this manner is attended by less 
inconvenience than baptism by immersion.” 1 

Dollinger, another of the greatest of Catholic his¬ 
torians and theologians, says the same thing in even 
stronger words than those employed by the American 
cardinal: “At first Christian baptism commonly took 
place in the Jordan; of course, as the church spread 
more widely, in private houses also. Like that of St. 
John, it was by the immersion of the whole person, 
which is the only meaning of the New Testament word. 
A mere pouring or sprinkling was never thought of. 
St. Paul made this immersion a symbol of burial with 
Christ, and the emerging a sign of resurrection with 
Him to a new life. Baptism is a ‘bath.’ Of the Ethi¬ 
opian’s baptism it is said that both he and Philip went 
down into the water and the Evangelist baptized 
him.” 2 

The Council of Ravenna, in 1311, made by law the 
substitution of sprinkling and pouring equally valid 
with the immersion of the person. Up to this time it 
had been confined to those who were ill, but from 
now on it gradually prevailed in the western church. 
But it is to be kept clearly in mind that it was purely 
a substitution of the Roman Church, and that they had 
no authority to make any such substitution. The 
priests of Rome to-day are filled with amusement at 
those who tirade against them, and yet cling to the 
baptism, so called, which they themselves invented. 

In the conclusion of our study of the rise of human¬ 
isms in the church, or, rather, the addition of human¬ 
isms to the revealed divine plan, let us remember that 


1 “Faith of Our Fathers,” Cardinal Gibbons, p. 266. 

2 “The First Age of the Church,” Vol. II., pp. 183, 184. 



The Origin of the Churches 273 

these humanisms created the Roman Catholic Church. 
That there are elements which are distinctively Chris¬ 
tian in the Church of Rome, all will agree, but that 
which makes it Roman Catholic are those errors into 
which the uninspired men who followed the apostles 
were led by their refusal to abide by the divine revela¬ 
tion in the New Testament. The ecclesiastical govern¬ 
ment or hierarchy, the human name by which the insti¬ 
tution is called, the human creed which is an interpre¬ 
tation of the Christian religion as it appealed to the 
minds of that day, the substitution of sprinkling and 
pouring for the baptism commanded by the Master, 
the addition of infant baptism to the New Testament 
plan—these are the errors which created the Roman 
Catholic organization. 

III. We Are Now Ready to Note the Fact that the 
Inheritances from Rome Created the Modern 
Denominational Order, and that That 
Order Persists To-day Because of These 
Roman Errors. 

In a word, that which makes modern denomination- 
alism is Roman Catholic in idea. As the Roman Em¬ 
pire did not die with the death of the physical empire, 
but lived on in the Roman Catholic Church, so even in 
those attempts at reformation, as they have expressed 
themselves in the Protestant bodies, live the roots of 
those errors which made the Roman Catholic Church. 
We will proceed to a brief examination of a few of 
the leading modern denominations in order that this 
contention may be substantiated. 

1. First of ally note that it is true of the church 
which was founded hy Martin Luther . 

18 


274 


The Resurrection Gospel 


We can not say too much of the work of this 
mighty man of faith. What would the world have 
been had it not been for the intrepidity of this hero 
of steel, who would not flinch though excommunica¬ 
tion and even death confronted him with all humilia¬ 
tion? We are building now on the work of this man, 
whose reformation was not only the beginning of the 
great return to the source of Christianity, and thereby 
to reunion among the people of God, but the great 
awakening in the mental life of the world, and all the 
amazing strides in science which have resulted are due 
to the work which he has done. None shall surpass 
your speaker in praise of the mighty work of Luther. 

Let it also be borne in mind that Luther tried to 
restore the Christianity of the New Testament. With 
all his heart he advocated the reading and interpreting 
of the Bible by the members of the body of Christ. 
To him this was of supreme authority. His translation 
of the Bible into German was to that language what 
the King James translation was to the English. Luther 
also endeavored to restore the names by which the 
members of the early Christian organization were 
known, and also the names of the church, for he 
realized that human names were wrong. He writes: 
“I pray you to leave my name alone, and not to call 
yourselves Lutherans, but Christians, Who is Luther? 
My doctrine is not mine. I have not been crucified 
for any one. St. Paul would not that any should call 
themselves of Paul nor of Peter, but of Christ. How 
then does it benefit me, a miserable bag of dust and 
ashes, to give my name to the children of Christ? 
Cease, my dear friends, to cling to these party names 
and distinctions; away with them all; and let us call 


The Origin of the Churches 275 

ourselves only Christians after Him from whom onr 
doctrine comes.’’ 1 

Luther also was convinced that infant baptism 
was not of divine authority, although he did not con¬ 
tend against it with enough vigor to insure its not 
being adopted by his followers. Of it he says: “It 
can not be proved by the sacred Scriptures that infant 
baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first 
Christians after the apostles. ’ ’ 2 He was likewise con¬ 
vinced that the New Testament baptism was such an 
act as would symbolize the burial and resurrection of 
the blessed Lord. How strong are his words: “First, 
1 baptism’ is a Greek word. In Latin it can be trans¬ 
lated ‘immersion,’ as when we plunge something into 
the water, that it may be completely covered with 
water; and although that custom has been given up by 
most persons, for they do not wholly submerge the 
children, but only pour on them a little water, yet 
they ought to have them completely immersed and 
straightway drawn out again.” 8 While he thus saw 
the light on the ordinance as it was taught and prac¬ 
ticed in New Testament times, yet he did not insist 
upon it. 

Let us, in thinking of the work of Luther, remem¬ 
ber that he had been trained as a Roman Catholic 
priest, and it would have been nothing short of miracu¬ 
lous if he had come out of this early teaching so com¬ 
pletely as to have given to the world a restored church. 
We are interested here in noting the fact that while he 
attempted honestly to return to the New Testament 
basis, still those very things which had made the Roman 

1 “Life of Luther,” Michelet, p. 262. 

2 “Eight Leading Churches,” Berry, p. 105. 

3 Ibid., Berry, pp. 105, 106. 



276 


The Resurrection Gospel 


Church clung with tenacity to the new reformation. 
For the Nicene Creed, the Augsburg Confession of 
Faith was substituted. Though protesting against 
human names, yet the name of Luther was worn by 
those who followed him in his protest against Rome. 
While convinced that there was no Scriptural authority 
for infant baptism, yet infant baptism was retained in 
the Lutheran Church. Knowing that the New Testa¬ 
ment form of baptism was the immersion of a peni¬ 
tent believer and resurrection of that believer into a 
new life, yet the Roman Catholic substitutes were 
retained in the new church which resulted from 
Luther’s unsuccessful attempt to reform Rome from 
within. In a word, the same errors which had made 
Rome were retained in the organization of the new 
denomination. 

2. It is sad to note that the same thing happened in 
the case of the Presbyterian bodies. 

As we would laud Luther, so also could we spend 
much time speaking words of praise for the wonder¬ 
ful work of Calvin. He overthrew the authority of the 
pope; he did not believe in bowing to councils, nor 
did their words have binding power upon his 
thought. He believed, as did Luther, in the study of 
the Bible as the rule of faith and the guide to eternal 
life. He was also in line with the teaching and 
practice of the apostolic church on the subject of the 
time of the observance of the Lord’s Supper: “And 
truly this custom, which enjoins communing once a 
year, is a most wicked contrivance of the devil, by 
whose instrumentality soever it may have been deter¬ 
mined.” 1 In another place he says: “It ought to 


1 “Inst.,” Book IV., Chap. 17; Book VI., Chap. 18. 



The Origin of the Churches 277 

have been far otherwise. Every week, at least, the 
table of the Lord should have been spread for Chris¬ 
tian assemblies, and the promises declared by which, 
in partaking of it, we might be spiritually fed.” 1 
Calvin was also convinced that the Scriptural bap¬ 
tism was the burial in water and resurrection of the 
believer, but he could not overcome his own Roman 
Catholic attitude toward the whole subject in general. 
He speaks of baptism, as to its original form, saying: 
“The word 'baptize 1 signifies 'immerse, 1 and it is cer¬ 
tain that the rite of immersion was observed by the 
ancient church. 113 His Roman Catholic training 
manifests itself in the following words: ''Wherefore 
the church did grant liberty to herself, since the begin¬ 
ning, to change the rite somewhat, excepting the sub¬ 
stance. It is no consequence at all whether the per¬ 
son that is baptized is totally immersed or whether he 
is merely sprinkled by an affusion of water. This 
should be a matter of choice to the churches in differ¬ 
ent regions. 113 

But the same mistake which was made by Luther 
was made also by the immortal Calvin and his follow¬ 
ers, the mistake of allowing to remain the very errors 
which had created the Roman Catholic apostasy. Con¬ 
sequently, merely another denomination was brought 
into being, as has always been the case, and as always 
will be the case, as long as those things which are dis¬ 
tinctively Roman in their origin are retained. Instead 
of the Nicene Creed, the Westminster Confession was 
adopted. Instead of the name “Roman Catholic,” 
the name “Presbyterian” was adopted. As with the 

i~*Tnst.,” Book IV., Chap. 17; Book VI., Chap. 18. 

2 “Inst.,” Book IV., Chap. 15. 

3 "The Eight Leading Churches,” Berry, p. 110. 



278 


The Resurrection Gospel 


Lutherans, sprinkling and pouring were retained. The 
Catholic roots of division are always the same, and the 
idea as expressed, perhaps in different form in each 
denomination, is always the same: human names, 
human creeds, human governments, and human sub¬ 
stitutions for the divine commands of the divine Lord. 
How much division and strife would have been saved to 
Presbyterianism, and how much more glorious would 
have been her already glorious accomplishments, had 
the words of her most outstanding modern scholar been 
followed, both in regard to baptism and in regard 
to creeds. In speaking of baptism, Philip Schaff said: 
“The baptism of Christ in the river Jordan and the 
illustrations of baptism used in the New Testament 
are all in favor of immersion rather than sprinkling, 
as is fully admitted by the best exegetists, Catholic and 
Protestant, English and German. Nothing can be 
gained by unnatural exegesis. The aggressiveness of 
the Baptists has driven pedobaptists to the opposite 
extreme. ’ 11 In speaking of the effect of human creeds 
upon the body of Christ, the same great scholar says: 
“They keep alive sectarian strifes and antagonisms, 
but they also reveal the underlying agreement, and 
foreshadow the possibility of future harmony.” “If 
we are to look for any new creed, it will be, I trust, 
a creed, not of disunion and discord, but of union and 
concord among the different branches of Christ’s 
kingdom. ’ 9 2 

3. The same rule that the causes of division are to 
be found in the errors which created the Roman Cath¬ 
olic Church, and which continuing, have created mod- 


1 “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” pp. 55, 56. 

2 “Creeds of Christendom,” Vol. I., pp. 4-11. 



The Origin of the Churches 279 

ern denominationalism, obtains with equal force in the 
case of the Church of England. 

Many have been the contributions of this church to 
the work of the kingdom of our blessed Lord. Time 
does not permit us to say what we would gladly say 
in words of praise. But we are interested here in 
considering the retention of those things which came 
from Rome, and which in other form created denomi- 
nationalism. The same root ideas are found in the 
English Church. Instead of the Nicene Creed, she has 
the Prayer-book. As Rome claimed the right to legis¬ 
late, so this claim is made by the bishops of the Church 
of England. The substitution of sprinkling and pour¬ 
ing for baptism was also retained, as was infant bap¬ 
tism. Instead of the name which had been worn by 
the early church, a name which honored and glorified 
the Lord, the new church wears a name of human 
origin and with human significance. The union of 
church and state, and the constant claim that the 
church can trace a line of unbroken succession back 
to Christ and the apostles, is one of the greatest 
barriers to-day in the way of Christian union. Both 
of these ideas were born in Rome. 

4. The principle that modern division is perpetu¬ 
ated by the clinging to the inheritances from the Roman 
Catholic Church is illustrated in the attitudes of the 
Methodist Church. 

The work of John Wesley was such that no one who 
has read of it could do aught but speak words of 
praise. He was one of the purest souls that has ever 
lived. He loved the church of Christ with all his 
great heart, and desired to see her brought to the 
unity which had once been hers. In the preface to his 


280 


The Resurrection Gospel 


“New Testament Notes,” he says: “My own con¬ 
science acquits me of having designedly misrepresented 
any single passage of Scripture, or having written one 
line with the purpose of inflaming the hearts of Chris¬ 
tians against each other. God forbid that I should 
make the words of the most gentle and benevolent 
Jesus a vehicle to convey such poison. Would to God 
that all party names and unscriptural phrases and 
forms which have divided the Christian world were 
forgot, and that we might all agree to sit down to¬ 
gether as humble, loving disciples at the feet of our 
common Master, to hear His word, to imbibe His 
spirit, and to transcribe His life into our own.” Of 
the New Testament practice regarding baptism, he 
says, referring to the meaning of Rom. 6:4: “Allud¬ 
ing to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion.” 
Though he believed this, as did also his colaborers, 
yet they did not insist upon it in the practice of the 
church which followed their efforts. However, it 
should always be borne in mind that Wesley lived and 
died in the Church of England, and much of his preju¬ 
dice clung to him—great soul as he was—to the end of 
his life. 

Wesley became convinced also that the claim of the 
Church of England that the bishops were of higher 
order than the elders was not substantiated by the 
Scriptures. He writes: “On the road to Bristol, I 
read over Lord King’s account of the primitive 
church. In spite of the vehement prejudice of my 
education, I was ready to believe that was a fair and 
impartial draught; but, if so, it would follow that 
bishops and presbyters are (essentially) of one order; 
and that originally every Christian congregation was a 


The Origin of the Churches 


281 


church independent of all others.” 1 Yet the preju¬ 
dice of his early training and education was too strong 
to allow him to so contend that the reformation which 
followed his herculean efforts would return to the 
New Testament practice. 

It is to be noted here, for in this lies our interest, 
that the same errors which, as we have found, created 
Rome, and which, when not renounced, created modern 
denominations, also were retained in Methodism. A 
rigid ecclesiastical government, a human creed which 
is “the fundamental law of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church,” the retention of infant baptism, substitu¬ 
tions for baptism as commanded by the Lord, and a 
human name—all these are the characteristics of 
Methodism. Methodism has not succeeded because of 
the Roman Catholic elements which it has inherited 
through the Church of England, but because of the 
Christian elements upon which these were builded. 
The marvelous vitality of the movement is to be found 
in the mighty Christian piety which has characterized 
it from the beginning, and with this an insatiable 
enthusiasm for evangelism. 

5. It remains for us to illustrate our contention with 
but one more illustration. 

The Baptist brethren have made much progress 
toward the restoration of the Christianity of the New 
Testament. A study of their usages and practices can 
not but justify this contention. They long ago revolted 
against the idea of authority in religion as invested 
in a pope or council of men. They have also given 
up the idea of a human creed. Although in the 
United States for years they were bound by the Phil- 


1 “The Eight Leading Churches,” Berry, p. 173. 



.282 


The Resurrection Gospel 


adelphia Confession of Faith, yet the major portion 
of the Baptist organizations have given this up now, 
and accept Jesus Christ as their only creed and His 
word as their only rule of faith and practice. They 
are, therefore, now, as a rule, free churches of Christ, 
with no authority, as far as men are concerned, except 
that which is in the local congregation. The Baptists 
have also taken Scriptural ground on the subject of 
baptism. This applies to the so-called form of it. 
They have found that to baptize in the New Testament 
manner it is necessary that the candidate be wholly 
immersed and raised from the water. The evangelistic 
and missionary zeal of the Baptists, coupled with the 
high type of Christian character for which they are 
universally noted, has made them a tremendous force 
in the religious world. As the years go by, they are 
going to do much in bringing about the unity of the 
people of God and saving a world from its sins. 

There are two places, or perhaps three, where it is 
quite evident that the Baptists can improve their posi¬ 
tion, Scripturally speaking. While having no human 
creed, as such, which applies to the members of the 
churches, the candidates for the ministry are still 
examined according to one of the older “Confessions of 
Faith ’ 9 which have been used by Baptists, either the 
Philadelphia Confession or the New Hampshire Con¬ 
fession being used. This is true of churches desiring 
to enter an association or seeking aid from a missionary 
society. This practice is out of harmony with the New 
Testament order of things, and will in time pass away, 
for the whole tendency of the Baptists is toward the 
complete restoration of New Testament Christianity. 
The Baptists are also on unscriptural ground on the 


The Origin of the Churches 283 

matter of the meaning of baptism. While in theory 
they do not believe that it has anything to do with 
the salvation of the sinner, in reality they do believe 
that it is for the remission of sins. One can not be a 
member of the church until he has been baptized, nor 
can he commune with the body of Christ until he has 
obeyed this command. The Baptist ministers will all 
admit that baptism is necessary to obedience. How¬ 
ever, the New Testament makes it plain that obedience 
is absolutely essential to salvation—that there is no 
salvation whatever without it. If, then, baptism is 
necessary to obedience, and obedience is necessary to 
salvation, baptism is necessary to salvation, for “things 
equal to the same thing are equal to each other.’’ 
The Baptist people will also eventually be forced to 
modify their position on the question of a name, for 
the name “Baptist,” or “Baptizer,” was not the name 
of the church which Jesus founded. It is a human 
name, and the time is coming when these people who 
have been in the main so earnest for New Testament 
usages will surely return to the name which ascribes 
glory and honor to the Prince of life. The obser¬ 
vance of the Lord’s Supper on each Lord’s Day will 
be another New Testament position which in time will 
be occupied by the Baptists. Many of them are follow¬ 
ing that practice now, and others are looking upon it 
with favor. The Baptist brethren are not as enthusi¬ 
astic about Christian unity as we believe they should 
be. However, this may be due to their misunderstand¬ 
ing the real meaning of the unity for which Christ 
prayed. Doubtless, time will greatly modify their 
present somewhat antagonistic attitude to this im¬ 
portant New Testament teaching. 


284 


The Resurrection Gospel 


IV. From Our Study of the Characteristics of the 
New Testament Church, and Also of the Origins 

of Divisions in That Mystic Body of Our Lord, 

We Are Now Ready to Consider the Only 
Method by Which Those Divisions May 
Be Healed and That Lost Unity Be 
Restored, that the World May Be 
Brought to a Saving Knowledge 
of Him. 

1. It has, first of all, been evident through this 
study that those things upon which we have always 
been united are the things taught to us in the New 
Testament. We have never been divided in our faith 
in Christ, in our belief that the name which honors 
Him is the name * ‘ Christian, ’ ’ that His word is a 
sufficient rule and guide of faith, that the immersion 
in water of a proper candidate is valid Christian bap¬ 
tism. Upon the teaching of the New Testament, the 
church in belief has always been united. If we can be 
thus united in faith, we can also be in practice. 

2. It is evident, in the second place, that everything 
which divides the church to-day is Roman Catholic 
in its conception and origin. There are five such rem¬ 
nants from Romanism which, as we have seen, stand 
as barriers to a reunited church of Christ. They are 
as follows: 

(1) Human names—Baptists, Methodists, Presby¬ 
terians, etc. 

(2) Human creeds—Nicene Creed, Augsburg Con¬ 
fession, etc. 

(3) Legislative bodies—Councils, bodies of bishops, 
etc. 


The Origin of the Churches 285 

(4) Infant baptism. 

(5) Substitution of sprinkling and pouring for im¬ 
mersion. 

Not only are these divisive errors the remnants of 
Romanism, but in their original form they created the 
Roman Catholic Church, and without them that church 
would never have been. When, therefore, we think of 
our divided state as Christians, let us remember that 
everything which perpetuates our division had its root, 
its origin, its conception in that great apostasy which 
resulted in the Roman Catholic Church. 

3. A third conclusion which, from our study, forces 
itself upon us is, that since these elements of division 
are Roman Catholic, and therefore human, there is in 
them no saving power at all. There is not now, and 
never has been, a single element of saving power in 
anything that has ever divided any real Christian 
man from his brother in Christ. A Methodist is not 
saved because of the fact that he wears the name 
“Methodist” or that he subscribes to the Methodist 
Discipline. He is saved by the experience which in 
common with all other Christians he has had because 
of his faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. This, and this 
alone, has any power to save from sin—this covenant 
relation to God through Christ. A Lutheran is not re¬ 
deemed from his sins because of the fact that he wears 
the honorable name of Luther, or because he subscribes 
to the interpretation of the Christian experience as 
expressed in the Augsburg Confession of Faith. He is 
saved and justified because of his relation to God 
through the blessed Lord Jesus. That which has 
saved him has saved his Methodist and Baptist and 
Presbyterian brethren also. If then, these humanisms, 


286 


The Resurrection Gospel 


these remnants from the apostasy of Rome, have no 
saving power, why should they be retained, since they 
only perpetuate all these evils which result from a 
divided church? 

4. In the fourth place, it is evident that the only 
way to unity is by a return to the Christian attitude 
to Christ, by a courageous casting out of those things 
which are Roman Catholic, and a return to those things 
which are distinctively Christian. Christian unity can 
only come as the church is de-Romanized. Only by a 
return to the creed of the New Testament church, 
and an unqualified acceptance of the New Testament as 
the rule of faith and practice, can the desired unity 
of God’s people be accomplished. Dr. Denny, firm 
Scotch Presbyterian as he is, catches the gleam of 
light when, in the introduction to his wonderful book, 
“Jesus and the Gospel,” he writes: “The argument 
appeals, on the one hand, to those who are members of 
Christian churches and to the churches themselves. 
Amid the vast unsettlement of opinion which has 
been produced by the emancipation of the mind and 
its exercise on the general tradition of Christianity, 
it calls attention anew to the certainty of the things 
which we have been taught. It demonstrates, as the 
writer believes, that the attitude to Christ which has 
always been maintained in the church is one which is 
characteristic of the New Testament from beginning 
to end, and that this attitude is the only one which is 
consistent with the self-revelation of Jesus during His 
life on earth. But it makes clear at the same time 
that this Christian attitude to Jesus is all that is vital 
to Christianity, and that it is not bound up, as it is 
often supposed to be, with this or that intellectual 


The Origin of the Churches 287 

construction of it, or with this or that definition, of 
what it supposes or implies. The church must bind 
its members to the Christian attitude to Christ, but it 
has no right to bind them to anything besides. It can 
never overcome its divisions, it can never appeal with 
the power of a unanimous testimony to the world, till 
both these truths are recognized to the full.” What a 
noble statement is this. The whole truth of the matter 
is stated. Only as this “Christian attitude to Christ” 
is recognized as the one essential fundamental can we 
ever attain to the long-desired unity of the body, in the 
bonds of peace. If we are to ask as to just what 
message it is which will produce this desired “Chris¬ 
tian attitude to Christ, ’ ’ Denny again answers: ‘ ‘ When 
we preach, we must certainly be able to tell men things 
about Christ which will justify the Christian attitude 
to Him. But these faith-producing things are not 
dogmatic definitions of His person; they are not doc¬ 
trinal propositions, such as those of the Nicene Creed; 
nor are they less formal expressions of essentially the 
same character. They are such things as we have been 
in contact with all through our study of the Gospels: 
they are the life, the mind, the death, the resurrection 
of Jesus. If the exhibition of these does not evoke 
the Christian attitude of the soul to Him, the soundest 
metaphysical doctrine of His person is worthless. But 
if the Christian attitude is evoked by the revelation 
of Jesus in the gospel, we have found that in which 
all Christians can unite, and the theological doctrine 
of His person may be trusted sooner or later to come 
to its rights.” 1 


1 “Jesus and the Gospel,” Denny, pp. 347, 348. 



288 


The Resurrection Gospel 


Thus it is that we are forced to the one conclusion 
which we have been trying to state: that only as we 
divest ourselves of those things which are Roman 
Catholic in their inception—human names, human 
creeds and human governments in the church, and 
human substitutions for the baptism commanded by 
the Lord—and return to that divine platform which 
is exhibited with such clarity in the New Testament, 
can the unity of the body of our Lord be accomplished, 
and the salvation of a sinful and heartsick world be 
accomplished. 

V. It Remains for Us, in the Last Place, to Con¬ 
sider Briefly the Fact that Those Who Call 
Themselves “Christians Only,” or “Dis¬ 
ciples of Christ,” Have as Their Dis¬ 
tinctive Plea This Very Return to 
the Christian Attitude to Christ. 

Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists there were, 
among these men to whom early in the nineteenth cen¬ 
tury was vouchsafed the vision of how the work of 
restoration, so gloriously begun by the intrepid Luther, 
the mighty Calvin and the saintly Wesley, can be fully 
accomplished. These early leaders were too near to 
Rome to see it all. Their prejudices were those of 
Roman Catholics, their training was in the ways of 
Rome. It remained for these men who, in the freedom 
of a New World, environed by new conditions, could 
look upon the sinfulness of division fearlessly, to see the 
light which to-day is breaking in upon the minds of all 
Christian men. Thomas Campbell and his great son 
Alexander, Barton W. Stone and Walter Scott, these 
were the men who gradually came to the position that 


The Origin of the Churches 289 

only by a reproduction in the present world of the 
Christianity of the New Testament, and a reunion 
upon Christ Jesus as He is revealed in His word, can 
the lost unity of the church of Christ be restored, and 
the salvation of the world be attained. Hence, they 
accepted Christ Jesus as He is revealed in the New 
Testament as their only creed, and the New Testa¬ 
ment as the infallible rule and guide of faith. The 
epochal statement of Thomas Campbell, in his “Dec¬ 
laration and Address’’—“Where the Scriptures speak 
we speak, and where the Scriptures are silent we will 
be silent”—was the key to discoveries the existence of 
which he had not even dreamed when he made it. 
Human names were to be forgotten, for these who 
would restore the New Testament church must use 
Bible names for Bible things. The employment of 
such Scriptural terminology would have saved untold 
disputations and divisions had it been adopted. The 
infallibility of the Scriptures as a rule and guide to 
faith had long been in theory the fundamental princi¬ 
ple of Protestantism, but these courageous Christians 
in the New World actually put it into practice. Human 
substitutions for baptism were cast aside, and a return 
was made, not only to the form, but the meaning, of 
baptism as it is described in the New Testament. In¬ 
fant baptism, so called, was cast out in practice, because 
no authority for it was found in the constitution, and 
that constitution Christ’s revelation in His Word. The 
churches of Christ, as far as the government of them 
was concerned, were to be free churches, builded upon 
the New Testament model, with the two classes of 
officers—elders, or bishops, and deacons. The Lord’s 
Supper was to be observed in apostolic custom every 

19 


290 


The Resurrection Gospel 


first day of the week. It was to be the Lord’s table 
and for His people. In everything it was the desire 
of these early restorers to exalt Jesns Christ as all in 
all. The Christian attitude to Him, with the faith in 
Him which it implies, and obedience to His commands 
which is also signified by “attitude,” was to be the 
one fundamental. That this movement would have a 
tremendous reception was to be expected. That it 
would profoundly influence the thought of all Chris¬ 
tians was certain. 

There is but one work ahead of the Disciples of 
Christ, and that to press the battle; in love and kind¬ 
ness to continue until the victory is won. There is 
everywhere unmistakable evidence that the creeds are 
crumbling. On every hand we are hearing the cry, 
“Back to Christ.” More and more are people realiz¬ 
ing that they are not saved by the theological state¬ 
ments which they have inherited, but by a common 
faith and experience in the common Lord. The Scotch 
theologian, from whom we have already quoted several 
times in this message, once more sums the matter up in 
his inimitable way: “In spite, however, of all their re¬ 
sponsibilities and obligations to the past, in spite of the 
duty incumbent on them to conserve its intellectual as 
well as its moral attainments, the pressure put on the 
churches, both from without and from within, to recog¬ 
nize the claims of intellectual liberty, is rapidly becom¬ 
ing irresistible. Christian people, who are consciously 
at one in their attitude to Christ and in their sense of 
obligation to Him, see that they are kept in different 
communions and incapacitated from co-operation in 
work and worship, because they have inherited different 
theological traditions to which they are assumed to be 


The Origin of the Churches 


291 


bound. Without entering into any discussion of what 
these theological traditions—call them creeds, con¬ 
fessions, testimonies, or whatever else—are worth, they 
feel in their souls that they are not bound to them, 
and ought not to be, with the same kind of bond which 
secures their allegiance to Christ. For the sake of 
getting closer to those who share this allegiance and 
co-operating with them in the service of the Lord who 
holds their hearts, they contemplate with more than 
equanimity the slackening or dissolution of the bonds 
which attach them to the theology, or, if we prefer to 
call it so, the Christian thought, of the past. They will 
think for themselves as they can or must, but the pri¬ 
mary necessity, if not the one thing needful, is the 
Christian attitude of the soul to Christ and union 
with all who make that attitude their own.” 1 

Christian unity is coming. In spirit it is almost here 
now. The remnants inherited from Rome are being 
more and more relegated to the background. Why not 
divest ourselves of them altogether? 


1 “Jesus and the Gospel,” Denny, p. 343. 



XII. 

THE SOLDIER OF THE CROSS 


Text. —“ Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ 
Jesus. ”—2 Tim. 2: 3. 

W HAT virile words are these, written by one who 
was a veteran of a thousand battles, to a young re¬ 
cruit in the army of the Lord! For Paul was a soldier; 
a battle-scarred veteran; a fighter who, as he looked 
back at his record, could proudly say: “I have fought 
the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept 
the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me the crown 
of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, 
shall give to me at that day; and not to me only, but 
also to all them that have loved his appearing” (2 
Tim. T:7, 8). What a story is told in these words! 
How much of emotion is crowded into them! A soldier 
is made in just one way; the pinnacle of victory is 
reached by just one path—the path of hardship! So, 
as Paul looks back over the years with their dangers 
and heartaches, as he thinks of the perils among false 
brethren, perils in the deep, battles with the enemies 
of the truth, he is moved to exhort this young man, 
this new soldier of the Lord Jesus whose feet are to 
walk that thorny, stony path, to suffer hardship “as a 
good soldier of Christ Jesus.” The way is long and 
weary, but the crown to be gained is one of eternal 
life; the prize to be won is worth it all. 

292 


The Soldier of the Gross 293 

The church of the Lord is described in various ways 
in the New Testament. It is sometimes spoken of as 
a hospital, a place where sinners are convalescing from 
their maladies. It is spoken of as an athletic contest, 
a place where a man contends as in a race. John 
speaks of the tender relation which exists between God 
and man and between Christians as that of a family. 
But one of the favorite attitudes of Paul was that which 
expressed itself in military terms. He loved to think 
of the church of Christ as a great army steadily march¬ 
ing on to battle and to glory. He is ever a believer 
in the conquering Christianity, in the Kingdom which 
shall bring all things into subjection to his beloved 
Master. It is to follow out this strain of thought as it 
appears so often in his writings that we bring to you 
this message to-day. 

I. Some Characteristics of Service in the Army of 
Christ. 

1. First of all, it is always a voluntary service. 

Christ never drafts any one into His service. If a 
man becomes a Christian soldier, he becomes such 
because he is forced to do so, not by the Lord, but by 
the pressure of his own conscience, by his faith in the 
Leader, by his attitude toward Christ and that for 
which the Lord stands. There are many who have 
taken the passive attitude toward the Savior. They 
wait for Him to do for them that which they them¬ 
selves alone can do. For though the King loves the 
sinner, and though He has died that the sinner might 
have life abundantly, yet there is one thing that even 
the love of Christ can not accomplish, and that is to 


294 


The Resurrection Gospel 


decide for the man himself. He must come as a 
volunteer; for 

“A call for loyal soldiers comes to one and all; 

Soldiers for the conflict, will you heed the call? 

Will you answer quickly, with a ready cheer? 

Will you be enlisted as a volunteer V ’ 

Without discussing at all the merits of the selec¬ 
tive draft as applied to the raising of an army in our 
day, it is to be noted that only the volunteer soldier 
is accepted in the army of Christ. Do not wait for the 
Lord to force you into His Kingdom, for this He will 
never do. He has not promised it; but He has empha¬ 
sized the dignity which is yours as a free moral agent, 
and has left the decision to you. It must be of your 
own free will and accord, because you want to come 
and sincerely desire to serve Him in the great cause. 

2. A second characteristic is noted in that the term 
of service is for life . 

When the Christian soldier enlists, he joins up for 
the duration of the war. There will be no blast of 
mustering-out trumpet until the final victory is won. 
The soldiers of the cross are on service from the very 
beginning until the clouds of smoke have rolled away 
and the flag of King Emmanuel floats in glory from 
the summit of the hills. There should be no misunder¬ 
standing about this when one contemplates the serious 
matter of enlistment. Remember that the war is ahead 
and that it is bloody and long; that the word of the 
great Commander-in-chief is: “Be thou faithful until 
death.” Only death itself can be our mustering out. 

3. There are no furloughs or leaves of absence 
granted in the army of the Lord. 


The Soldier of the Cross 


295 


Frequently there are those who take a furlough. 
They are A. W. 0. L.—“absent without leave /’ But 
no furloughs are granted by the leader in the con¬ 
flict. I remember the story of a man in Indiana who, 
about election-time, came to the pastor of the church 
and said: “Now, pastor, I want to be free for this 
election-time to do just as I please. If I want to get 
out with the boys and have an all-around good time, I 
want to feel that it will be perfectly all right for me 
to do so. Therefore I am very frank in coming to 
you to ask you to give me a furlough or leave of 
absence. I promise you that at the expiration of this 
election I will come back and will be a good Chris¬ 
tian, but for a time I want to feel that I am free to do 
as I choose / 9 Now, that man really believed the min¬ 
ister of the church could grant him a furlough. But 
such can not be given, for the term of service of the 
Christian soldier is for all the time, for every day and 
every hour of that day and every minute of that hour. 
There is to be no let-up, but the war is to be pushed 
forward from daylight until dark, from darkness to 
daylight, from enlistment until death. 

4. Desertion from, the army is punishable by death. 

There could be no other way. He who takes upon 
himself the solemn obligation of a soldier of the Lord 
of hosts, and then in a moment of lust or greed or 
passion turns back to the enemy, ought to suffer 
death. For that is the meaning of desertion in the 
Christian army—desertion not merely from the ranks 
of the blessed, but desertion to the enemy. It means 
that the one who has once tasted of the joys of the 
life in Christ has gone back to the side of the enemy 
of souls. This is surely the meaning of the Master 


296 


The Resurrection Gospel 


when He says: “He that is not with me is against me, 
and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. ’ 7 

5. The service in the army of the Lord is a su¬ 
premely joyous service. 

One can not know real happiness until he becomes 
a soldier of Jesus Christ. This is the universal testi¬ 
mony of those who for long have been enlisted. There 
is no true happiness out of Christ, Some there are 
who have done their utmost to make themselves believe 
they are happy, but the sinner has a terrible time. 
When we entreat men to be reconciled to God, to 
turn from sins to serve Him in whom there is life 
and light, we are inviting them to do that which will 
bring to their darkened spirits the greatest glory, the 
highest joy, that mortal man can know. 

II. Let Us Consider Also the Method of Enlistment 
in the Army of Christ. 

What must I do to become a Christian soldier? 
How may I enlist? There must be a road to Christ, 
a way into this wondrous experience which is called 
Christian. It is to be noted that we enlist in the 
Christian army just as we would enlist in any other 
army. 

1. First of all, to be Christian soldiers, we must 
believe in the cause. 

This is necessary in any army. One must believe in 
the cause before he becomes a soldier, or he must be 
made to believe in it after he is inducted into the 
army, or he will never become a real soldier at all. 
There can be no doubt but that the service rendered 
on the part of any army is directly proportionate to 
the intensity of its faith in the righteousness of the 


The Soldier of the Cross 


297 


cause for which it draws saber or shoulders musket. 
And this is peculiarly true of the Christian soldier. 
The fact of the matter is that one could not even 
think of a Christian soldier without this faith in his 
cause. The reason why men are banded together in 
an army called Christian is that they have become con¬ 
vinced of the righteousness and wonder of their cause. 
And how glorious is that cause!—the cause of world 
redemption, the cause of salvation from the conse¬ 
quences and the blight of sin, the cause of little chil¬ 
dren. It is altogether lovely, and it calls forth the 
noblest and best in any man or woman who would 
be dedicated to all that is highest and best. Firm 
and stedfast must be our faith, unshakeable must be 
our resolution, if we would do valiant battle for the 
Captain of our salvation. 

2. Not only is it necessary that one believe in the 
cause, but he must also believe in the Leader. 

Confidence in those who lead is a fundamental 
necessity, if success is to attend the efforts of an army. 
It is said that the troops of Napoleon were absolutely 
invincible whenever he was with them. The personal 
presence of the “Little Corporal” was worth a battal¬ 
ion of men. They would willingly scale the hoary 
Alps, fight like demons upon the plains of Italy and 
die like flies up in the bitter snows of Russia, if the 
peerless leader were only going on before them. And 
it is necessary that the soldier of the cross believe in 
the ability of his great Commander-in-chief, if the 
enemy is to be routed in confusion. What kind of 
Leader has the Christian army? Does He know the 
science of battle? Can He so direct the movements 
of His troops that they can successfully engage the 


298 


The Resurrection Gospel 


enemy ? Where learned He the art of war ? The 
apostle Paul answers our questions in one mighty 
statement: “For it became him, for whom are all 
things, and through whom are all things, in bringing 
many sons unto glory, to make the author [or cap¬ 
tain] of their salvation perfect through sufferings’’ 
(Heb. 2:10). Is not this the way in which a leader 
is always made—through suffering? Jesus Christ, 
the author or captain of our salvation, was made a 
perfect leader through experience. He has suffered 
temptation, He has endured pain, He has experienced 
death. He knows how to lead in the spiritual bat¬ 
tles, for He has been the way before us. He can say 
to us “Follow me,” for He is a veteran; He has been 
through the training. The discipline has been His, for 
“though he was a Son, yet learned he obedience by the 
things which he suffered; and having been made per¬ 
fect, he became unto all them that obey him the author 
[or captain] of eternal salvation” (Heb. 5:8, 9). He 
is able to lead us; and without fear, but with absolute 
confidence, may we trust Him. And this is the 
meaning of faith as we come to Christ, that we believe 
that He is ordained of God to lead us through this 
life of trial and battle; that He is our perfect guide 
and helper, the pattern of our lives. 

3. If one would become an enlisted soldier of Christ, 
it is further necessary that he forsake everything which 
in any way interferes with his service in the army. 

The boys had to do this when they enlisted in the 
army of Uncle Sam during the Great War. One could 
not be a soldier of America and at the same time run 
a hardware store in his own home town. The store 
would interfere with his service; hence, when he en- 


The Soldier of the Cross 


299 


listed, he left everything behind to devote himself 
without reservation to the work in hand, that of 
winning the war. And this is certainly true of the 
Christian soldier. He must forsake those things which 
interfere with his service for the King. This does not 
mean that he is to forsake the ordinary duties of his 
every-day life and become a recluse or hermit. Asceti¬ 
cism belongs to the Middle Ages, but not to our day. 
It is through these very ordinary duties of our busi¬ 
ness, domestic or social life that we are to glorify 
God and fight the battles for the Lord of our salva¬ 
tion. To forsake those things which interfere with 
our service means to repent of our sins. In the next 
verse after our text, Paul writes to Timothy: “No 
soldier on service entangleth himself in the affairs of 
this life; that he may please him who enrolled him as 
a soldier’* (2 Tim. 2:4). And this is ever the mean¬ 
ing of repentance. We can not swear and be good 
soldiers for the Lord; for swearing interferes with our 
service. We can not lie and steal, and harm our 
fellow-man or ourselves; for these things interfere 
with that work whereunto, by the clarion call of the 
trumpet of the King, we have been called. We can 
not be entangled in the affairs of the world and serve 
Him. Moffatt has clearly translated the passage just 
referred to: “No soldier gets entangled in civil pur¬ 
suits; his aim is to satisfy his commander.” How 
strong is that word “entangled.” It means to be 
wound round and round, tied up, enmeshed. And how 
many times we have seen the service of capable men 
and women nullified because of their much worldliness. 
They are tied up with the cares of this life, and they 


300 The Resurrection Gospel 

have no time nor any inclination to do battle for the 
Lord. 

4. It is also necessary that, after a stedfast faith 
in the cause and a faith in the ability of the Leader, 
and after divesting himself of those things which 
hinder his service, the one who would enlist in the 
army should present himself before a recruiting officer 
and make known his desire to serve. 

The pastor of the church is a recruiting officer. He 
is constantly engaged in drilling his troops, but he is 
also always looking out for new recruits that the ranks 
of the army may be continually augmented. The evan¬ 
gelist is a recruiting officer. His business in a 
special way is to enlist men for Christ. And this we 
are trying to do now, so to present the glories of the 
cause, the ability of the Leader and the duty of all to 
be engaged in the battle for righteousness, that those 
who hear this plea may be constrained to “join the 
ranks of those who bear suffering, like loyal soldiers 
of Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:3—Moffatt’s Translation). 
I can never forget that time when I presented myself 
before a recruiting officer and made known my desire 
to serve my country. It was a solemn moment. And 
such is surely that time when one comes before his 
fellows, and to the recruiting officer makes known his 
desire to become a Christian soldier, to engage in all 
that Christian service may mean. This he does in the 
act known as the good confession. It is a moment 
of decision, a moment of great change in the life, 
when we take a public stand for the faith which is in 
our hearts. The apostle to the Gentiles speaks of this 
confession as one of the conditions of final victory 
when he writes to the Romans: “If thou shaft confess 


The Soldier * of the Cross 


301 


with thy mouth Jesus as Lord [or captain], and shalt 
believe in thy heart that God raised him from the 
dead, thou shall be saved: for with the heart man 
believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth con¬ 
fession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10: 9, 10). 

5. The final step in enlisting in the Christian army 
is to take the oath of allegiance. 

A solemn thing is an oath. There was no ex¬ 
perience to me so memorable as that of standing in the 
presence of others and swearing or affirming by all 
that was great and good within me that I would be 
true to the flag of my country, its Constitution and 
to the State which was my home. It is a time when 
the noblest emotions surge through the soul, when 
resolve beats high. So it is that the most solemn act 
of all in becoming a Christian soldier is that of the 
oath. An oath is a translational act. It is by the 
oath that one is translated from the position of a 
civilian to that of a soldier. His state is changed. 
I heard this illustrated by your minister, Brother 
Taubman. During the war, the time came when 
George, Jr., wanted to enlist. Brother Taubman 
accompanied him to San Pedro. Young George was 
the son; he was Brother Taubman’s boy. But after 
that oath he no longer belonged to Brother Taubman. 
From that moment he belonged to Uncle Sam. He 
was Uncle Sam’s son. By the oath of allegiance, his 
state or relationship had been changed. The oath 
did not make him believe in the cause; he believed 
in that before he came to take the oath; his faith in 
it brought him to the oath. He did not become a 
believer in the leaders by the oath. He was a believer 
in the power of those whose minds directed the war 


302 


The Resurrection Gospel 


before he took the oath. The oath was an act—an 
act by which he was in a formal manner made a 
soldier of his country. 

And in becoming a Christian soldier there is an 
oath of allegiance to take, a solemn obligation, when, 
by all that is good and true within us, we promise 
to be true to the Lord to whom forever that oath 
commits us. That oath is the act of baptism. Bap¬ 
tism does not make us want to serve the Lord, nor 
does it give us faith in Him. It does not bring us to 
the place where we wish to divest our minds and con¬ 
sciences of those things which are sinful. All this 
we have experienced in our hearts before we come to 
the waters of baptism. Baptism translates us from the 
position or state of civilians to that of soldiers, from 
the state of non-combatants to that of warriors. In 
this oath of allegiance we formally leave behind us our 
sins, those things which interfere with our service for 
the Captain of our salvation, and formally take upon 
ourselves the obligations of those who from this time 
on, without stint, are to throw themselves whole¬ 
heartedly into the battle. This is the meaning of that 
statement of Paul: “For as many of you as were 
baptized into Christ did put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). 
If we are baptized into Christ, we are necessarily bap¬ 
tized out of that position or state where we did not 
belong to Him. Here, then, is a change of state or 
relation. This is also the meaning of our Lord as 
in the great commission He says; ‘ ‘ Baptizing them into 
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the 
Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). If we are baptized into 
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the 
Holy Spirit, evidently we must have at the same time 


The Soldier of the Cross 


303 


been baptized out of that state where we did not wear 
the divine names and where all the privileges of those 
who are in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were not 
ours. A change of state or relationship, a formal in¬ 
duction into active service, this is the meaning of bap¬ 
tism as an oath. The more I have studied men in 
relation to this act of obedience, the more I am con¬ 
vinced that it is not water, nor the immersion in 
water, which intimidates many. It is rather the solem¬ 
nity of that oath of allegiance, the wonder of that 
moment when the old world is left behind and we enter 
upon the new life. 

When one thus believes in the cause, believes also 
in the Leader or Captain of our salvation; when one, 
divesting himself of every hindering incumbrance, 
presents himself before a recruiting officer and takes 
the oath of allegiance—he is then an enlisted soldier. 
He now is enrolled and has the name, and is under 
the military authorities. But in our text Paul speaks 
of Timothy enduring hardship as “a good soldier.” 
There is a vast difference between an untried soldier 
and a good one; between a raw recruit and a veteran. 
We will next, therefore, consider 

III. The Process of Becoming a Good Soldier of 
Christ Jesus. 

It is one thing to enlist; it is quite another thing 
to become a good soldier. By enlisting, one places 
himself in that position in which he may learn how 
to serve with success the Lord who has called him. 
As one becomes a soldier in the army of Christ just 
as one becomes a soldier in any other army, so also 


304 


The Resurrection Gospel 


one becomes a good soldier in the army of the Lord 
just as one becomes a good soldier in any other army. 

1. After enlisting, the new recruit is turned over 
to the quartermaster’s department and outfitted with 
u uniform and a weapon. 

And what an experience this is! That army uni¬ 
form! Can a soldier ever forget it? I remember my 
own. It was too tight. The fellow next to me had 
one which was too big. What a sight we were as we 
assembled after the issuing of these uniforms. Now, 
in the Christian army we have a uniform. An armor 
it is called, but it means the same thing as a uniform. 
Paul so splendidly describes it, and tells the necessity 
for putting it on and wearing it unceasingly, that I 
must quote the whole passage here: “Finally, be 
strong in the Lord, and in the strength of his might. 
Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able 
to stand against the wiles of the devil. For our 
wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the 
principalities, against the powers, against the world- 
rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of 
wickedness in the heavenly places. Wherefore take up 
the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to with¬ 
stand in the evil day, and, having done all, to stand. 
Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, 
and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and 
having shod your feet with the preparation of the 
gospel of peace; withal taking up the shield of faith, 
wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery 
darts of the evil one. And take the helmet of salva¬ 
tion, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of 
God” (Eph. 6:10-18). In the study of this armor 
there is a sermon in itself. We can consider it but 


The Soldier of the Cross 


305 


briefly. The grand old soldier, after his own mighty 
experience, exhorts us to be strong because it is going 
to be an awful fight. More dreadful is it than all the 
wars of men, for we are to fight the unseen hosts as 
they gather round us. We are therefore to tighten the 
belt of truth around our loins. Our coat of mail is to 
be integrity. Our feet are to be shod so that we shall 
not baekslide, and those shoes are to be of the stability 
of the gospel of peace. Our shield is faith, and in it 
we are to stop all the fire-tipped darts which the evil 
one will hurl upon us. Upon our heads is to be the 
shining helmet of His salvation, and in our hands the 
flashing sword of the Spirit, the invincible word of 
God. Here is equipment for the battle, and with it 
we shall gloriously win. There is one place, however, 
for which there is no preparation—the back. Here is 
armor for all the body but the back. There is to be 
but one direction for the soldier of the cross, and that 
is forward. The moment he turns his back upon the 
enemy he is gone; the fire-tipped darts of the devil 
will pierce him through the back to the heart, and he 
will fall in defeat and ruin. 

We should also note that, in preparing the soldier 
for the conflict, a weapon is given to him. In the 
American army, it was in my day the new model 
Springfield. And what a terrible weapon it was. If 
one did not understand how to use it, he might kill 
himself or his comrades rather than the enemy. A 
finer gun was never made than the Springfield. In 
the Christian army we have a sword, a glittering, two- 
edged sword, more terrible than all the weapons forged 
in the armories of earth or heaven. The writer of the 
Hebrew letter describes it vividly: “For the word of 
20 


306 


The Resurrection Gospel 


God is living, and active, and sharper than any two- 
edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul 
and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to 
discern the thoughts and intents of the heart ” (Heb. 
4:12). In the hands of an expert swordsman this is 
the most formidable weapon ever known. On Pente¬ 
cost, Peter drew it forth; it flashed in the sunlight of 
that natal day of the church, and then it was red 
with the blood of three thousand who in agony of soul 
cried aloud for salvation. It is a weapon of offense. 
The Lord did not give it merely as a weapon of 
defense. Too long have we taken that attitude. Ours 
is an offensive battle, and we are to carry the war into 
the enemy’s country. 

2. After being equipped , the new recruit is placed 
in an awkward squad where he is taught the uses of 
the weapon and by drill how to work with his buddies. 

The awkward squad is the place where the fellow 
next to you comes down on your toe with the butt of 
his rifle. It is the place where you get punched in the 
eye with the bayonet on the gun next to you. It is 
the place where, by making mistakes, the new recruit 
learns to be a soldier. There is no other way. The 
old Christian who has been through the valley of the 
shadow, who has borne the brunt of the battle through¬ 
out the long years, will testify to this fact. We build 
upon the dead remains of the mistakes we have made 
until at last we attain heights. 

The attitude of veterans toward those of the awk¬ 
ward squad is always the same, no matter where the 
army may be. It is the attitude of sympathy and help¬ 
fulness. It is the desire of all who have gone the way 
before us that those of us whose feet for the first time 


The Soldier of the Cross 


307 


are pressing the Christian road shall become real 
soldiers of the Lord. Though we stumble and make 
mistakes along the way, these are ready with cheer¬ 
ing word and sustaining hand to assist us till we 
come at last to the place where as strong men in 
Christ Jesus we are able to walk alone. 

3. The new recruit becomes a good Christian sol¬ 
dier by attending drill. 

How tiresome at times drill becomes! It is the same 
old thing over and over again and it becomes monot¬ 
onous, but there is no possibility of one ever becom¬ 
ing a good soldier without it. There are two things 
which every soldier must learn. He must learn 
to work and fight together with the other soldiers, 
and he must learn how to use his weapon with effec¬ 
tiveness. This very need is met in drill. Every 
Lord’s Day morning we have a Bible school where the 
members of the church are divided into squads or 
classes under a drill sergeant or teacher, and taught 
to work together and to use the terrible weapon of 
offense, the two-edged sword of the Spirit. And how 
much more efficient in killing men for the Lord has 
the church become since the establishment of this drill 
period, the Bible school. Every member of the church 
should be enrolled in the school and placed in some 
squad where the needed instruction may be received. 
After the Bible-school hour, the army then meets as 
a regiment for regimental drill. Here it learns to 
move as a unit under the leadership of the great Com¬ 
mander-in-chief and the pastor or colonel. Further 
instruction, also, is given in the use of the weapon and 
in the methods of bringing men to surrender their lives 
to the conquering Lord. 


308 


The Resurrection Gospel 


4. The new recruit also becomes a good soldier by 
eating the right kind of food. 

No soldier can become truly great by eating pie 
and cake and goodies all the time. He must be fed on 
the kind of food which produces muscle and bone and 
strength. He must have vigor, and there is but one 
way for him to get it, and that is by eating the proper 
food. Too many Christians are being fed on the 
wrong diet. We can not eat the cheap things of the 
world and be strong. We must be fed on the strong 
meat of the Word. We must dine at the table of the 
great Commander, for His food will give us the 
power we need in our wrestling against the unseen 
forces of the evil one. 

5. The new recruit becomes a good soldier by study¬ 
ing the field of action. 

This should not be left to the officers only, but it 
should be a part of the military education of every 
soldier in the Christian army. We ought to know 
about the great mission fields where the battle is being 
fought so gloriously by our comrades. For this reason, 
we have missionary societies and circles where we may 
meet together and study the fields to be taken for the 
King. When a soldier knows something about the 
field, he will be ready to advance with greater zeal to 
the fray. 

IV. What Is the Prospect of Success? 

This is a legitimate question. Every man would 
like to know, before he enlists, as to the possible out¬ 
come of the war. Are we going to succeed? Is this 
battle to be in vain ? Are we to believe that the 
church is a failure, that all that has been done in the 


The Soldier of the Cross 


309 


past has been in vain? Is it true that Christianity 
as it is exhibited in the New Testament has been a 
delusion and mistake from the very beginning? 
Frankly, my brethren, I grow very weary of the defeat¬ 
ist attitude these days. How utterly blind are many 
writers to the facts. It is really remarkable how easy 
it is for men to write learnedly about things of which 
they have no knowledge at all. Such a question 
forming the title of a book, “Can the Church Survive 
the Changing Order? 7 ’ is a type of many being asked 
to-day. ‘ ‘ What is the matter with the church ? ’ ’ 
* i Has Christianity failed ? ” It is astounding how 
those who ask such questions in all seriousness can 
calmly close their eyes and go right on with their 
criticisms. The easiest thing in the world is to criti¬ 
cize the church. And it is a popular thing. Were I 
anxious to make a world-round name for myself, I 
would write a book in which I would belabor the 
church from the preface to the conclusion. But what 
are the facts? Happily, we have abundant material 
with which to evaluate the progress of the church. 
And these facts are telling us, for one thing, that never 
in the history of Christianity have men been flocking to 
the church as they are to-day. Never have there been 
such Bible schools. I can remember the time when if 
we had three hundred in a Bible school we were filled 
with joy and thanksgiving. Then, as the years went 
by, we worked in some of our schools for the amazing 
total of one thousand in attendance. I can remember 
the time in my own short life when it was heralded 
from coast to coast that we have a Bible school of that 
size. The other day, in your own city of Long Beach, 
I attended a class in which there were three thousand 


310 


The Resurrection Gospel 


men. Last Easter Lord’s Day there were scores of 
Bible schools in this land of ours in which there were 
more than two thousand present. I can also remember 
the time when, if we had a hundred additions to the 
church in an evangelistic campaign, we were happy. 
In these days we frequently have that many in one 
day. And then, in the matter of giving, what do the 
facts tell us? Why, one church gives as much for 
missions to-day as a whole brotherhood did a hundred 
years ago. Last year one communion went into a cam¬ 
paign for more than a hundred million dollars. In 
three years, in the United States and Canada, one 
great religious body added more than a million mem¬ 
bers to its rolls. These are a few of the facts: do they 
seem to spell defeat? Oh, brethren, what we need 
to-day is a little less of the gloomy doctrine of pessi¬ 
mism and more of the doctrine of hope and confidence 
and love. With all her mistakes, the church is still 
the most live, the most virile organization in the world 
at this hour. What is the prospect of success? How 
foolish is the question! There is just one thing ahead 
of the church of Christ, and that thing, victory. The 
mighty army of the Lord of hosts is sweeping, like an 
irresistible mass, up the slopes of the hill upon which 
the enemy is intrenched; and the flag of the King will 
float proudly from the summit. 

But sometimes we are discouraged. The work is 
hard and men are often unresponsive to our plea. 
When these times come, then it is that we need to 
follow the admonition of Paul, “Be strong.” I am 
thinking, just here, of a true story which illustrates 
so well what our attitude should be when we are com¬ 
passed about with discouragement. In southern En- 


The Soldier of the Cross 


311 


gland, one day, there met together a little Endeavor 
society. So few were they that grim discouragement 
settled like a pall upon the meeting. It had been so 
hard to get the young people to attend, and some of 
them had labored so earnestly. And yet they had 
not been able to dent the indifference which every¬ 
where surrounded them. One of the young men arose 
and in a gloomy tone said: “I think we should dis¬ 
band our society. We are not doing a thing for God. 
It is all a drag and not worth the effort. Let us 
quit.” In glum silence he sat down, and there seemed 
not to be energy enough in the attendants to reply. 
Finally, however, a young man arose who, with flash¬ 
ing eyes, said: “I believe my friend is wrong. We are 
doing something for God. This thing has meant much 
to me. I am sure I am a better man for having 
attended these meetings Lord’s Day after Lord’s Day. 
And then, perhaps, we have not tried as faithfully as 
we might. There are near us every day opportunities 
which we do not see. Right in our city there is a 
regiment of our own English soldiers. Why not go 
down to them to-morrow and take them some copies of 
our little song-books and some New Testaments?” 
‘‘Why, they would laugh at you,” was the reply from 
one of the boys. “Who ever heard of taking Bibles to 
soldiers?” “Well, they can not do more than throw 
them away; and it will do us good to go, anyway. 
Let us take them the books to-morrow.” After awhile 
the boy prevailed, and the next day the Endeavorers 
journeyed to the barracks, carrying with them the 
little song-books and the copies of the New Testament, 
and to each soldier they met they presented both a 
song-book and a Testament. The soldiers received the 


312 


The Resurrection Gospel 


gifts courteously; but after the Endeavorers had re¬ 
turned to their homes, they wondered if, after all, 
they had really accomplished anything. One of the 
soldier boys, after the young people had gone, as he 
sat upon the edge of his bunk, turned the leaves of the 
song-book idly. Suddenly a number caught his eye. 
Number 125: “When the mists have rolled in splendor 
from the summit of the hills.” When had he heard 
that song? Then he knew. As he closed his eyes 
there came to him the vision of that little cottage 
in the glen; white it was, and with the vine climbing 
round the door. Back of it frowned old Ben Nevis, 
with the white mists from off the sea wreathing his 
awesome brow. And from the cottage, he in his child¬ 
ish play had often heard a sweet, girlish voice sing¬ 
ing softly the words of that song, “When the mists 
have rolled in splendor from the summit of the hills.” 
It was the voice of his mother. Well could he remem¬ 
ber the day when, broken-hearted, he had stood beside 
the little grave, and as his tears had poured upon it 
had promised her that he would be true. There 
came again the scene of his Sabbath days, when the 
long line of his people in Scottish Highland custom, 
with the old grandfather leading the way, and the wee 
laddie at the end of the line, had marched in single file 
to the old kirk. And one hymn which they sang was 
this one which had brought such a flood of memories 
into his soul. Again he turned the leaves of the little 
book. Number 185 caught his eye: 11 Nearer, my God, to 
Thee.” Then in shame there came upon him the reali¬ 
zation of all that his wild life in the army meant to 
him, of how far away he had strayed from those 
wonderful teachings which had made his own life and 


The Soldier of the Cross 


313 


that of his own beloved Scotland. He leaned his face 
in his hands and sat there a long time thinking. 
The tears were flowing when he said: 1 i I have not been 
true. But I will turn. I will find those young people 
who brought me this book to-day, and I will once more 
place myself under the influences which were so power¬ 
ful in my childhood.’’ That evening, therefore, when 
the bells were ringing, a soldier boy came quietly into 
the building and seated himself near the door. The 
preacher, that night, seemed to the boy to be inspired, 
for every word of the message was directed at him. 
They went through him again and again. When at 
last the invitation was given, the boy arose, and, hesi¬ 
tating a moment, walked down the aisle and gave his 
hand to the pastor and that day confessed his faith in 
the Christ. The service over, a great exaltation filled 
the heart of the new soldier of the King. But he 
was afraid to return to the barracks. One man whom 
more than others he feared was a tall corporal, Jim 
Ainsworth, the bully of the barracks, a wild, godless 
fellow who would surely persecute him for the stand 
he had taken. But as he drew nearer the place his 
heart grew stronger with a strange new courage, and, 
as he entered the room, he summoned the fellows to 
him and said: “Men, I went to the church to-night 
and gave my heart to God. I am going to be a Chris¬ 
tian from this time on. To-morrow night I am going 
to be baptized, and I want you all to be there.” A 
loud laugh greeted his invitation, and the bully re¬ 
plied: “Yes, we will be there, every one of us. Men, 
I want you all to be in the gallery, and, when he is 
baptized, I will stand and give the signal, and I want 
you to give one loud hiss. We will be there to help 


.314 


The Resurrection Gospel 


him get the proper start in this Christian life, as he 
calls it.” 

The next evening came, and with it a house packed 
to the doors, and, in the gallery, hundreds of men in 
the uniform of British soldiers. The sermon was fin¬ 
ished, and the pastor led the boy down into the 
waters, and as his hand was raised the words of that 
solemn formula rang out clear and strong: “Upon 
the confession of your faith in Jesus the Christ and 
by His authority, I baptize you into the name of the 
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” As 
the boy was being lowered into the watery grave a 
tall form arose in the gallery, and as Corporal Jim 
Ainsworth faced the crowd of soldiers, these words 
were hissed through his teeth: “The man who speaks 
or moves will settle with me in the barracks after this 
is over.” The service was over and the great audience 
filed silently out into the night. 

Another day of service dawned bright and clear, 
and another soldier boy came quietly into the back of 
the church. Another heart-searching message, another 
invitation, and another boy walked down the aisle 
and gave his hand to the minister. Once more the 
good confession was made, and then the tall Corporal 
Jim Ainsworth turned to the audience, and, with the 
permission of the minister, said: “I wronged a friend 
last week, and now his courage and faith have brought 
me to decision. I am a soldier of Britain; but I want 
also to be a soldier of God.” From this beginning 
fifty men from the barracks became Christians. A 
little Endeavor society was organized, and night after 
night the men would come together and sing the songs 
from the little book and pray and give their testimony 


The Soldier of the Cross 


315 


about the love of God in their hearts. And the two 
favorite songs were 125, “When the mists have rolled 
in splendor from the summit of the hills,” and 185, 
“Nearer, my God, to Thee.” 

But one day the soldiers were forced to say good- 
by to their young friends whose love had made possi¬ 
ble their new life, for the regiment was ordered to 
South Africa. If there is an Englishman here to-day 
who went through the rigors of the campaign, he 
knows what the troops of Britain suffered for their 
motherland. One evening, as the little Endeavor so¬ 
ciety was meeting together, there came a messenger 
from the commander asking for volunteers for a very 
hazardous undertaking. It was necessary to locate a 
certain battery which had been causing havoc all day. 
Four men wxre needed. Who would go? Corporal 
Jim Ainsworth arose at once and quietly said: “I 
will gladly go if others will go with me.” Immediately 
a dozen men sprang to their feet. Three others were 
chosen and then it was good-by. Anglo-Saxons are the 
same the world over, whether it be in America or 
Britain or Canada or Australia; they do not believe 
much in grandstanding. So but few words were spoken 
as the men left the light of the fire. But to them out 
there in the darkness there came a soft call: “One 
hundred and twenty-five, Corporal.” And like an echo 
came back the answer: “Aye! Aye! When the mists 
have rolled in splendor from the summit of the hills.” 
Then again came a word: “One hundred and eighty- 
five, men.” “Yes, 185, ‘Nearer, my God, to Thee/ ” 
and they were gone. 

The morning dawned. It was the morning of 
Land’s Neck, when from the hills came the sullen 


316 


The Resurrection Gospel 


boom of guns. In every direction the mists heavy and 
damp covered the African veldt. Suddenly to the 
expectant troops came a curt order, and forward 
through the mists of the morning, and upward toward 
the muttering guns on the hilltop, the men of old 
England, as only Anglo-Saxons can, charged their 
way to victory. A short, sharp fight, and the union 
jack waved proudly from the hill and the day was won. 
A soldier from the Endeavor society, with bayonet 
fixed and eyes flashing with the battle light, came sud¬ 
denly around a great rock. Then at the sight which 
greeted him he threw his gun away and stopped beside 
a dying comrade. Kneeling, he tenderly lifted the 
head into his lap and leaned close that he might catch 
the last words from the whitening lips of his friend, 
Corporal Jim Ainsworth. In a whisper they came, 
“When the mists have rolled in splendor from the 
summit of the hills,” and as the soldier boy looked 
the mists of the morning were rising from the veldt 
and the glorious sun was smiling through. Then, like 
a tired sigh came one final word, “Nearer, my God, to 
Thee,” and on the mists of the morning the soul of 
Corporal Jim Ainsworth, a soldier of England and sol¬ 
dier of God, was lifted in triumph out of the poor, 
tortured body into the everlasting peace of the ivory 
palaces of God. 

Nineteen men of that Endeavor society survived 
the war. Two of them to-day are Y. M. C. A. secre¬ 
taries in Canada, one is a successful minister of the 
gospel. All who live are faithful. Did it pay for 
that discouraged band of young people to go to the 
soldiers with the song-books and Testaments? How rich 
was their reward, and yet with what fear did they 


The Soldier of the Cross 


317 


approach their task! There is no doubt about the re¬ 
sult. How can there be with such a leader as Jesus 
our Savior? Let us press on with confidence and joy 
and with singing! 

11 Sound the battle-cry! see! the foe is nigh; 

Raise the standard high for the Lord; 

Gird your armor on, stand firm, every one; 

Rest your cause upon His holy word. 

“Rouse, then, soldiers, rally round the banner; 

Ready, steady, pass the word along; 

Onward, forward, shout aloud Hosanna! 

Christ is Captain of the mighty throng. “ 


XIII. 

WHY I AM A CHRISTIAN ONLY 


Text. —“And Agrippa said unto Paul, With but little per¬ 
suasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian. And Paul said, 
I would to God, that whether with little or with much, not thou 
only, but also all that hear me this day, might become such as I 
am, except these bonds.’ ’—Acts 26: 28, 29. 

E VERY man should be able to give a reason for the 
position he occupies religiously. It is not suffi¬ 
cient to say that one belongs to a certain religious 
body simply because his father or mother belonged 
there. A man should be able to give a reason which 
is really in every sense a reason. There must be con¬ 
victions of a real and vital nature if we are to be 
great Christians. The Restoration movement has a very 
definite reason for its existence. In the degree that 
men have understood this reason they have been great 
in their efforts to extend the kingdom of God upon the 
earth. A great plea has always been necessary to the 
making of great Christians. The powerful doctrine of 
justification by faith made Luther great in his work; 
the wonderful thought of the sovereignty of God gave 
vigor to the life of Calvin; the necessity of holiness 
in life made Wesley what he was in the religious 
world. Our own people have been great in propor¬ 
tion as they have realized the magnificence and splen¬ 
dor of our mission. Some there are who have seen 
but a part of it, and their work has meant but little, 

318 


Why 1 Am a Christian Only 319 

while others have realized the whole beautiful and 
magnificent plan. In this message I want to give my 
personal reasons for being identified with those who 
call themselves “ Christians only. ” 

I. I Am a Christian Only Because of My Love and 
Reverence for the Bible as the 
Very Word of God. 

Our people, wherever they have accomplished the 
work that God has given them to do, have always been 
a Bible people. The Bible is accepted as the word of 
God. The minister is bound by the Book, and that 
alone. He can be as broad as the Word is broad and 
as narrow as the Word is narrow. The very possibility 
of accomplishing the thing that, as a people, we have 
started out to do—namely, to restore the church of 
Christ—rests upon a restoration of the word of God 
to the position of absolute authority in all questions 
of doctrine, life and discipline. There can be no quib¬ 
bling here. If a man is to be a Christian only, he 
must accept the Bible as the very word of God. The 
statement of Thomas Campbell still holds good to-day: 
“Where the Scriptures speak, we speak, and where the 
Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” Our position, if 
we are to do our work, must be, “No book but the 
Bible.” The ringing declaration of Paul is as meaning¬ 
ful to-day as the day when first it was written: ‘ ‘ Every 
scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teach¬ 
ing, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which 
is in righteousness: that the man of God may be com¬ 
plete, furnished completely unto every good work” 
(2 Tim. 3:16, 17). 


320 


The Resurrection Gospel 


II. I Am a Christian Only Because as Such I Can 
Clearly and Fearlessly Proclaim the 
Scriptural Law of Pardon. 

I can tell a man what Jesus and the apostles said 
he must do in order to be saved from his sins. 
And how simple and easy to comprehend is that law. 
All one needs to do is to tell it. We are not to philoso¬ 
phize or theorize about it, but simply to tell what the 
Lord said. The old, nonsensical views of conversion 
are rigidly tested by the Scriptures, and if they are 
found to be without Scriptural foundation they are 
cast aside. The Restoration preachers have also been 
absolutely scientific in their method of interpreting the 
law of pardon. It is the scientific method because it is 
the inductive plan. All the cases of conversion, as 
recorded in the book of conversions, the Book of Acts, 
are brought together and examined. From what was 
done in each case the general laws of conversion are 
drawn, and are found to be in absolute accordance 
with the positive commands as given by the Lord Him¬ 
self. It is also found that not only is this general law 
of pardon—as drawn from the cases which are re¬ 
corded—in accordance with the commands of Christ, 
but it is also psychologically sound. The church of 
Christ is the only religious body to-day which really 
teaches a law of pardon with a sound psychological 
basis. As Christians only we can preach to men the 
Word which alone is able to save their souls, telling 
them, as Paul told the Romans, that when they have 
obeyed from the heart that form of teaching whereunto 
they are delivered, then they are made free from sin 
and become servants of righteousness. 


Why I Am a Christian Only 


321 


III. I Am a Christian Only Because the Churches 
of Christ Are the Only Ones Which Emphasize 
the Symbolic and Commemorative Beauty of 
the Ordinances of Our Lord. 

The churches of Christ have always emphasized the 
symbolic beauty of baptism. Baptism has a real and 
a vital meaning to one who is a Christian only. To 
one who really understands, there is nothing so dis¬ 
gusting and abhorrent as the statement that baptism 
is a non-essential. No one can clearly understand the 
relation existing between baptism and the great facts 
of the gospel, and even think of such a thing. Paul, 
in that wonderful statement to the Corinthian breth¬ 
ren, tells us that the facts of the gospel are three when 
he says: “Now I make known to you, brethren, the 
gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have 
received, wherein also ye stand, by which also ye are 
saved, if ye hold fast to the word which I preached 
unto you, except ye have believed in vain. For I 
delivered unto you first of all that which also I re¬ 
ceived: that Christ died for our sins according to the 
scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath 
been raised on the third day according to the scrip¬ 
tures’ ’ (1 Cor. 15:1-4). The three great facts of 
our religion are that Christ died, that He was buried, 
and that He was raised from the dead by the power 
of God. Now, when a man who is prepared in mind 
and heart to be baptized, who is a penitent believer in 
the Lord Jesus Christ, comes to the waters of baptism, 
we see acted out, in symbol, these very facts which give 
to our religion its power. Every conversion is a re¬ 
capitulation of the events of Calvary. Every man who 
21 


322 


The Resurrection Gospel 


comes to the Father by Christ comes by the path of 
the cross. He dies as Christ died; as Christ died for 
sin the sinner now dies to sin. But when one dies, 
we bury him as Christ was buried after His death 
upon the cross. In baptism we see that burial; and 
as the Lord arose triumphant, so the believer rises 
from the watery tomb into a new life in the Master. 
Baptism will always be tremendously essential because 
it is connected in a vital manner with the cross of 
Christ. It is in this moment of obedience that we 
come to the application of the cleansing blood of the 
Redeemer. There is no other people in the world who 
bring out the true meaning of baptism. The very 
heart of this act is its symbolism, and those who are 
called Christians only are the only ones whose prac¬ 
tice shows it forth. 

The commemorative beauty of the Lord’s Supper 
is also emphasized by the churches of Christ. Not only 
is this true, but, as is the case concerning their posi¬ 
tion on the question of baptism, they are the only 
ones who do so emphasize its true significance. The 
Lord’s Supper was observed on the Lord’s Day, and 
on every Lord’s Day, by the Lord’s people. The day 
on which He rose from the grave, the day forever 
made sacred by this sublime fact, is made even more 
so by the observance of that feast which more than any¬ 
thing else in the world commemorates His death and 
suffering. There is nothing which can so stir men to 
noble deeds and holy lives as the memory of noble 
deeds that have been done for them, and noble lives 
that have been lived that they might have enduring 
blessings. We need the constant reminder of the suffer¬ 
ing of Jesus for us in order that we may be constantly 


Why I Am a Christian Only 323 

stirred to greater efforts for Him. There is but one 
place where I may find the table of the Lord spread 
every week, and that is in the church of Christ, among 
those who wear His name, and that alone. For this 
reason, then, I am a Christian only. 

IV. I Am a Christian Only Because of the Beauty 
and the Significance of the Names Which 
They Wear. 

They are “disciples” of Christ, but they are more 
than disciples. I am sure that we have made a sad 
error in our brotherhood by making this term “dis¬ 
ciple” the prominent name. A man may be a dis¬ 
ciple of the Lord and never be a Christian at all. 
A disciple is a “learner,” but a Christian is an 
obedient disciple; a Christian is a learner or dis¬ 
ciple who puts into practice the things which he 
learns. Joseph of Arimathea was a disciple of the 
Lord, but, as far as we know, he never became an 
obedient disciple, or a Christian. Nicodemus was a 
disciple of Christ, but he never had the courage to 
put into practice the things that he had learned—he 
never became a Christian. There is but one true posi¬ 
tion, and that is the one plainly taught by the New 
Testament, that, as an organization, the church should 
be called the “church of God,” the “church of the 
living God” or “churches of Christ,” and as indi¬ 
viduals the proper name should be “Christians.” 
And how beautifully expressive is it of the relation¬ 
ship existing between the members of the body of 
Christ and the Lord Himself. Christ is our King, our 
Lawgiver, our Judge, our Redeemer, our Savior; He 
is all in all. Paul tells us in the Galatian letter: 


324 


The Resurrection Gospel 


“As many of you as were baptized into Christ did 
put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). If one is baptized into 
Christ, he becomes a C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N. He becomes 
one of the great soul-saving system which is Christ. 
This is the only name in all the word of God of 
which the significant word chrematizo in the Greek 
is used, meaning “divinely called or given.” 

No other name was given by the Father Himself. 
It is the only name that Paul would have Agrippa to 
wear when, after the semi-ironical statement of the 
king, “With but little persuasion thou wouldst fain 
make me a Christian,” he said, “I would to God, that 
whether with little or with much, not thou only, but 
also all that hear me this day, might become such as 
I am, except these bonds” (Acts 26:28, 29). What 
was Paul? You answer, “A Christian.” What kind 
of a Christian? Just a Christian, plus nothing, minus 
nothing, a Christian only. The name “Christian” 
is the only name directly sanctioned by the Holy 
Spirit. Speaking through the apostle Peter, He says: 
“But if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be 
ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name” 
(1 Pet. 4:16). This is the name, brethren, and there 
is not a shadow of doubt about it. I belong to the 
church of Christ and am a Christian only. 

V. I Am a Christian Only Because of the Magnifi¬ 
cence of the Plea of the Churches of 
Christ for Christian Union. 

The proportions of this plea are vast and magnifi¬ 
cent. To gather together all the scattered forces of 
Christendom into the one body of the Lord! Where is 
there a plea in all the world to compare with it? It is 


Why I Am a Christian Only 325 

greater than that of a Luther, a Calvin or a Wesley. 
It is a big plea and has appealed to really big men 
throughout the years. And the basis upon which it is 
to be accomplished is indisputably right. If this basis 
is not right, then there is no right foundation for 
union. We are to be one in Christ as the Master 
planned when He said in His great intercessory 
prayer: “Neither for these only do I pray, but for 
them also who shall believe on me through their word; 
that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in 
me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that 
the world may believe that thou didst send me. And 
the glory which thou hast given unto me I have given 
unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one; 
I in them and thou in me, that they may be perfected 
into one; that the world may know that thou didst send 
me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me” (John 
17:20-24). To be one in Christ means to be one on 
His word, for only through His word and the word of 
His apostles can we know of Him and believe on Him. 

One of the greatest of these apostles tells of the 
basis of union when, in writing to the Ephesians, he 
said: “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech 
you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were 
called, with all lowliness and meekness, forbearing one 
another in love; giving diligence to keep the unity of 
the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, 
and one Spirit, even as ye are called in the one hope 
of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 
one God and Father of all, who is over all, and 
through all, and in all” (Eph. 4:1-7). 

If we are to unite upon this ground, and we can 
unite upon no other, we can see the irresistible con- 


326 


The Resurrection Gospel 


elusion that we must cast aside all human names and 
all human creeds and all human church governments 
and all human substitutions for the commands of the 
Lord. These things must go, for they have divided the 
church for these hundreds of years, and as long as they 
remain they will continue as barriers of division. 
There never was a time in the history of the divided 
church when men were as anxious to hear this wonder¬ 
ful position as they are now. Christian union is not 
as near as many of the most optimistic of our brethren 
think, but it is coming. It will come, however, only 
if those now who are qualified to speak for the church 
will unhesitatingly and fearlessly proclaim these truths 
of the Word. While the World War was on, many of 
our preachers preached on topics allied to the great 
conflict because men’s minds were turned in that direc¬ 
tion; and now, while the religious world is thinking 
as it has never thought before, on the subject of the 
reunion of the people of God, is the time when every 
minister of the churches of Christ, from Atlantic to 
Pacific, should preach the Scriptural basis upon which 
alone can come the union which we all so ardently 
desire. Let us not lose our nerve and be afraid that 
people will be hurt by the truth, but preach it, 
brethren, in love and with all the enthusiasm at 
your command. What a wonderful influence our 
mighty people could have if, all over the country just 
now, this basis of union were being preached in every 
revival meeting, and even frequently in the regular 
services by the local minister. It is right, and it is 
God’s plan. Shun not, brethren, to declare the whole 
counsel of God. 


Why I Am a Christian Only 


327 


VI. I Am a Christian Only Because the Position 
These People Occupy Is Undenomina¬ 
tional and Non-sectarian. 

I know that there are some among our ministers 
who honestly believe that we are a denomination pro¬ 
testing against denominationalism. Brethren, you are 
mistaken. A denomination has certain well-defined 
and easily recognizable earmarks which our people do 
not possess. If a man obeys the Scriptures, and those 
alone, without any human creed by which they are 
interpreted, he will become to-day what men became 
in the days of the apostolic church, a Christian, and a 
Christian only. Obedience to the commands of Christ 
in that day made a man a member of the church of the 
Lord, and even though there were those then who were 
imperfect Christians, yet a man could not become a 
denominationalist because Christianity was not organ¬ 
ized along denominational lines. But if the same com¬ 
mands are obeyed to-day and the same pattern is fol¬ 
lowed in organizing a New Testament church now as 
was followed then, the resulting organization will not 
be a denomination, nor the members of that organiza¬ 
tion denominationalists. Obedience to the commands 
of Christ will make a man just a Christian, plus noth¬ 
ing, minus nothing, for it takes acceptance of some¬ 
thing more than that which Jesus commanded to make 
a man a denominationalist or a sectarian. Subscrip¬ 
tion to a human creed, even though it be outgrown 
and scarcely ever read, yet makes one a denomina¬ 
tionalist because its very existence creates a barrier 
which divides the one subscribing to it from all others. 
The wearing of a human name constitutes one a denom- 


328 


The Resurrection Gospel 


inationalist, because it, like the creed, helps to keep 
alive division. A spirit which desires only the growth 
or extension of a party, whether the cause of the Lord 
prospers or not, makes one a sectarian. 

In my own ministry I have sometimes been called 
sectarian because I preached simply those things which 
the New Testament teaches. One, however, will have 
no fear of being a denominationalist if he will abide 
by the teachings of the Scriptures, and proclaim them 
fearlessly day by day. The churches of Christ occupy 
the great universal ground, the ground upon which all 
people are agreed in belief now, and for this reason 
they can not be, as long as they hold to it, a denomina¬ 
tional people. They have a universal or catholic creed, 
“ Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to-day and for 
ever.” They have a universal name, the name “Chris¬ 
tian,” and the universal baptism, the immersion of a 
penitent believer into the name of the Father and of 
the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It is the only 
undenominational and non-sectarian ground in the 
religious world. 

VII. I Am Identified with Those Who Call Them¬ 
selves Christians Only Because They Are 
an Intensely Evangelistic People. 

The strength of the Restoration movement has been 
in the intensity of its evangelism. Like the early 
Christians, they have gone everywhere preaching the 
Word. If we continue to grow and lead men to the 
Christ in large numbers, we must keep alive this spirit 
of evangelism. Every preacher must be an evangelist. 
At least one sermon every Lord’s Day should be filled 
with evangelistic fire and enthusiasm. Whenever we, 


Why I Am a Chi'istian Only 329 

as a people, become non-evangelistic, we shall die. I 
have held in the past three years six meetings in 
abandoned stone buildings in the West, buildings that 
have been abandoned by a once powerful people who 
to-day are dying—dying because they have ceased to 
be a soul-saving people. In early times the divinely 
inspired messengers of the great evangel went out two 
by two taking the gospel to a hungry world. Let us 
keep up this great practice. 

VIII. Last of All, I Am Identified with Those Who 
Call Themselves Christians Only Because of 
the Fact that in All Things Their Su¬ 
preme Effort Is to Exalt Jesus Christ. 

They honor Him by their reverence for His word. 
They believe that in this Word He has revealed His 
will toward men. They exalt Him as the only creed 
of the church. They honor Him in the great con¬ 
fession which they always make before men before they 
are baptized into Him. He is honored in the act of 
baptism, for it is a proclamation of His death for sins, 
His burial and His resurrection. By wearing the 
name “Christian” they honor Him who is the founder 
and head of the church. They show by this very name 
that they are His, and His alone. As a people, there¬ 
fore, brethren, we are not exalting baptism or the 
Lord’s Supper or the name “Christian,” but Jesus 
Christ the Lord. Whenever we exalt any of these 
things as of first importance we immediately become 
denominationalists and sectarian in spirit, but when 
we exalt Him we are Christians, and Christians only. 
May we, by our thoughts and words and deeds, let the 
world know that to us Christ is all in all. 


XIV. 

THE FOUR BIGGEST FOOLS 


Text.— “But God said unto him, Thou foolish one, this night 
is thy soul required of thee, and the things which thou hast pre¬ 
pared, whose shall they be?”—Luke 12: 20. 

Introduction. 

T HE word of God is absolutely unsparing in its 
treatment of sin. Its terminology is merciless. 
The man who lies is a liar; the man who steals, whether 
it be a large amount or small, is a thief; the man who 
kills is a murderer, and the man who commits adultery 
is an adulterer and displeasing to God. It does not 
hide the sins of men. Even those who are men after 
God’s own heart are fiercely condemned when they 
transgress His law. When David sinned and fell short 
of the glory of God he was called an adulterer and 
murderer, and it was made clear to him in language 
unmistakable that his sin had displeased Jehovah. If 
one lives a life of folly, true to this unswerving atti¬ 
tude toward sin, the Bible calls him a fool. It is a 
harsh term, this, but it is the only one which can 
describe the actions of certain men. 

Those who shall be mentioned in this message are 
but types of men and women of our own day. Civili¬ 
zations change as the centuries go by, but the hearts 
of men are about the same throughout the ages. The 
fools of yesterday have their representatives in the 

330 


The Four Biggest Fools 


331 


world of to-day. Let us realize, therefore, that we are 
looking at ourselves as we gaze into the pictures of 
these men of the past. The Bible is wonderful in that 
any man who desires can find his own life’s story in 
the sacred pages, for this book above all things else, is 
a story of life—of the religious life of men upon the 
earth. 

DISCUSSION. 

I. Abner, the Daredevil Fool. 

In the war between Saul and David, Abner, the 
son of Ner, had treacherously slain Asahel, the brother 
of Joab. Realizing that Joab, as the avenger of blood, 
had the right to slay him in expiation of his sin, 
Abner flees with all celerity to Hebron, a city of 
refuge. Successfully attaining the city, he rejoiced in 
safety, for beyond the walls of that city Joab dared 
not go. But Abner was a restless spirit, and, the con¬ 
finement of the city soon becoming irksome to him, he 
longed for the freedom without the walls. Day fol¬ 
lowed day, and with the passage of the days the longing 
for freedom grew within him. At last it became in¬ 
tolerable. He would go to the gate, at least. But 
Joab was waiting for him, and apparently in a friendly 
mood, for he invited him to the middle of the gate that 
he might speak to him privately. With the trusting 
simplicity of a child, Abner accepts the invitation. No 
sooner has the middle of the gate been reached than 
there is the quick flash of a deadly weapon, a smothered 
and astonished cry, and Abner lies in his own blood. 
When the king heard of the death of his servant, great 
was his mourning and bitter was his cry of sorrow: 
“Should Abner die as the fool dieth?” The anguished 


332 


The Resurrection Gospel 


question of the king was answered by the folly of his 
servant, for the death of Abner was the death of a fool. 

1. The death of Abner was the death of a fool 
because he unwittingly placed himself in the hands 
of his enemy. He knew well that Joab, as the avenger 
of blood, had the right to take his life. He should 
have known that Joab would not soon forget or for¬ 
give him for the murder of his brother. How utterly 
foolish, therefore, that he should trustingly accept the 
invitation of his mortal enemy for a conference just 
outside the safety-line. Any man, who thus places 
himself in that position where the enemy can strike 
him to death, is a fool, and his death is the death of 
a fool. 

How like the lives of some Christians of to-day is 
the action of this man of old. The enemy of the soul 
is ever alert and ready, watching always that he may 
find the right chance to do us to death. Are we 
placing ourselves in his hands? How many of us are 
following the injunction of our Master to “watch and 
pray”? The grave warning of the apostle to the Gen¬ 
tiles is one which comes to us now with solemn force: 
“Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he 
fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). I have been asked frequently 
by young Christian friends: “Brother Kellems, what 
about this questionable thing, or that? How near to 
the dead-line can I get and be safe?” The question 
is not how near can I get to the dead-line and be 
safe, but how far away can I get from that dead-line. 
There is but one position when a question as to the 
right or propriety of a thing comes to our minds, and 
that position is summed up in those virile words: 
“Abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22). 


The Four' Biggest Fools 


333 


It is the only safe way. Whenever we begin to flirt 
with the devil we are in grave danger, whenever we 
trifle with temptation we are placing ourselves in his 
power. I once knew a man who had had a long and 
terrible battle against the thirst for strong drink. He 
was growing stronger day by day, and as long as he 
remained away from all the places where he was in 
danger of being tempted he was safe. But one day 
there came upon him the desire to test his strength. 
He was no longer afraid; he would show the world how 
strong he was. With boldness, therefore, he went 
down to the old haunts of the life that he had given 
up. For a time he gloried in his strength, although 
the very smell of the vile stuff started a million little 
demons racing madly through his blood. He would 
take one glass to show that even the taste for the 
ruinous liquid had been conquered by his years of 
abstinence. One drink, and his courage began to fail. 
One called for another and yet another. You know 
the rest of the sad, sordid story. He was pulled on¬ 
ward by a power not his own, until, with the fire of 
the stuff in his brain, he had lost all control, and the 
years of valiant effort were lost. The old enemy was 
subtle and alert to catch him in his weak place. And 
is it not always true that it has been some little, un¬ 
guarded, weak place in our lives that means the fall? 
Montcalm, on the heights of Quebec, gloried in the 
frowning ramparts which reared their proud heads 
between him and the white-winged ships of England 
waiting expectantly in the broad river far below 
him. Why should he be afraid? The honor of France 
was safe, for no troops could scale those dizzy walls 
of rock. But there was one little path unguarded. A 


334 


The Resurrection Gospel 


dozen soldiers could have held it against all comers. In 
the darkness of the night, while the French general was 
complacently thinking of his security, the soldiers of 
England were toiling silently up that path until, when 
the morning dawned, Montcalm was stunned as he 
looked out upon the long, red lines of royal Americans 
as they stood in battle array upon the Plains of Abra¬ 
ham. One little, unguarded path spelled the defeat of 
France upon the American continent. And how often 
has it been that one little, unguarded weakness in the 
life, one little, apparently harmless indiscretion, has 
meant the wreck and ruin of an otherwise beautiful 
soul. Remain in the city of refuge, in the purity and 
power of God’s love and service, if you would be safe 
and strong. 

2. Abner died as a fool, because he perished right 
at the gate of salvation. Hebron was a city of refuge, 
and yet he died in its gates. To me it has always 
been a sad thing when men, who have had but scant op¬ 
portunity to obey the Lord, go out into the darkness of 
eternity. But I know something infinitely sadder. The 
man who has had the chance; the man who has heard 
the gospel of redeeming love from his babyhood; the 
one whom God has blessed with a Christian mother and 
father, a Christian wife and Christian children—for 
a man like that to allow the sable walls of eternal 
night to close around him without obedience to the 
Lord Jesus Christ, certainly this is the saddest of all. 
And what folly it is! To leave the eternal rewards of 
service and decision for a mess of pottage. Such folly 
is wickedness indescribable. And there are those 
whose ears hear these words, and whose hearts are sadly 
accusing them this day, who are drifting unheedingly 


The Four Biggest Fools 


335 


on toward that eternal darkness. It is far more 
terrible for one who knoweth to do good, and doeth it 
not, to perish, than for that one upon whose ears the 
gospel story has fallen but infrequently. 

II. Herod, the Egotistical Fool. 

Herod was a king, and a king whose greatest 
delight in life was to receive the praise of the people. 
To be popular was the chief aim of his wicked heart. 
Seeing that it pleased the Jews, he killed the apostle 
James with the sword, and imprisoned Peter. And 
then later, upon a certain day, he arrayed himself in 
royal apparel and made a pompous oration to the 
people. Dazzled by his glittering jewels and brilliant 
robes, the people cried aloud with awe-stricken voice: 
“The voice of God, and not of a man” (Acts 12:23). 
How flattered was the blasphemous scoundrel who sat 
upon the throne. But as a thunder-bolt is hurled 
from the courts of indignant Heaven, so there came 
upon him swift punishment. An angel of the Lord 
smote him and he fell down in horrible anguish, his 
pride and ambition humbled before the very ones from 
whom so lately he had received such shouts of acclaim, 
and, in the terse, stern words of the writer of Acts of 
Apostles, “he was eaten of worms and gave up the 
ghost.” And the reason for it was given also in that 
same calm record: “He gave not God the glory” 
(Acts 12:22). 

And was not this king of old a type of some of our 
day, and of the very church which Jesus loved? Is it 
not true that the guiding motive of the service of some 
Christians is that they may be seen and heard of men, 
and that they may receive as their reward the plaudits 


336 


The Resurrection Gospel 


of men? Have you not seen some give in a public 
manner, and with flourish, in order that their gifts 
might form the subject of conversation of the com¬ 
munity? Have you not known those who would give 
of their money in a public manner so that their busi¬ 
ness might be advertised? I once knew a doctor who 
would always do things if he could do them so that his 
name could be mentioned publicly, in order that his 
profession might be advertised. God pity us, we have 
prostituted the church of our Lord, His own bride, 
for business. We have given to ourselves that glory 
which to God alone belongeth. In my boyhood I knew 
a woman who was a member of my own home church. 
She was always just ten minutes late to each service. 
She had a reason for being late, for her entrance into 
the house of the Lord was timed to the minute. 
Promptly ten minutes after the service began she 
would enter the door, and with great display and 
pomp she would be ushered to her seat. I sat with the 
crowd of somewhat irreverent youngsters who had 
given to her a nickname. We did not need to turn 
our heads to know that she had come. We could hear 
her; we could instinctively feel her presence. The 
name given to her, therefore, was “Old Sister Grand 
Entry,” for her greatest ambition was to make a big 
show of her entrance in the meeting-house. She had 
one favorite passage of Scripture, “Study to show 
thyself.” She never finished the verse, for her constant 
endeavor was to show herself. 

2. Herod, the egotistical fool, was also like some 
to-day who are outside the church. He thought he was 
self-sufficient. He could do without God. He did not 
need the Lord. How often have we met those who 


The Four Biggest Fools 


337 


feel that in their own strength alone they are sufficient 
for this world and the one which is to come. They 
do not need the kingdom of God, nor are they con¬ 
cerned about a Savior, for they do not need salvation. 
Another personal experience will be pardoned just here. 
In the southern part of my own State, several years 
ago, a young friend of mine, one of the finest of gos¬ 
pel preachers whom the Pacific coast has ever produced, 
and I were engaged in an evangelistic meeting. Great 
interest had been aroused in the proclamation of the 
message, and large crowds were attending. One eve¬ 
ning an elder of the church came to me and said: 
“Brother Kellems, there is a man in your congrega¬ 
tion who has the reputation of being a preacher-eater. 
Now, that doesn’t mean that he feeds the preachers, 
but that he is one who loves to dine on their theology. 
He will invite you to his home, and will show you how 
little you know about the Bible, and the things per¬ 
taining to religion in general.” Now, I knew quite 
well that he would have no great difficulty in doing 
just that thing, for I was young and inexperienced, 
and the things I did not know were far more 
numerous than those I knew. It was with a great 
deal of trepidation, therefore, that I saw the gentle¬ 
man referred to approaching me, one evening. He 
came up in a pompous manner and said: “Brother 
Kellems, you will dine with me to-morrow.” Notice 
he did not say, “Will you dine with me to-morrow?” 
but, “you will.” I stammered a reply: “Y-y-yes, 
sir, I—will.” The next day we repaired to his home. 
Knowing that soon the slaughter was to begin, and 
feeling somewhat like a lamb which was to be the sub¬ 
ject, I determined to do justice to the occasion in one 
22 


338 


The Resurrection Gospel 


way at least. I have always been blessed with a real 
appetite, and on this day it was in first-class order, 
so I ate everything in sight. Suddenly, at the close of 
the meal, he turned to me and started to speak. I 
said to myself: ‘ ‘ The time has come, and the preacher¬ 
eating is about to commence.” To my astonishment, 
however, he said: “Brother Kellems, do you know that 
in this revival meeting that you are holding you are 
not going to git me? These people have been after 
me for twenty years; they want my influence, they 
need my money, but they ain’t going to git it.” Can 
you imagine my amazement? I had expected a tirade 
about the mistakes of Moses, perhaps one on the im¬ 
possibility of the deity of Jesus, and then to hear such 
a bald-faced expression of egotism as that. Being 
young and impetuous, and of Irish blood, anyway, 
before I thought, I had answered: “Well, as far as I 
am personally concerned, I don’t give the snap of my 
finger whether I git you or not.” Think of it! a man 
believing that his entrance into the church of God was 
the only power that would keep it alive. In a word, 
that, by his coming, he was conferring a benefit or 
favor on the Lord. I can remember to this day the 
indignation which surged through me at his words, 
and with considerable heat I went on: “Let me tell 
you, my brother, that the church of my Lord is bigger 
than any one man in it or out of it. When you are 
dead and gone, and the flowers have ceased to grow 
over your forgotten grave, the church of Jesus Christ 
in this community will be going on with its work of 
saving the souls of men. We do not need you, but, 
more than any other need in the world, you need us 
and you need our Savior. Until you can come saying, 


The Four Biggest Fools 


339 


‘I am poor and weak and blind, and I need Thee 
every hour,’ do not come at all. Until you can feel 
that way, for God’s sake don’t come down the aisle.” 
And to you who, to-day, think that in your own 
strength you are sufficient, to you would we bring the 
same message: you need our Lord, and without Him 
you are impotent. Don’t follow in the footsteps of the 
egotistical fool. 

III. Ananias, the Hypocritical Fool (Acts 5:3). 

The church of God had decided to have all things 
common and do the work of the Lord from this com¬ 
mon fund. Ananias, however, after selling his posses¬ 
sion, came in pompous hypocrisy and gave but a part 
of it to the apostles. Imagine the conversation between 
him and his wife Sapphira: “My dear, you know that 
I am a good business man, and that I would not be so 
foolish as to give all that I have to the church. You 
know, my love, that I have salted part of it down for 
the certain rainy day which is coming. I would not 
leave myself destitute by foolishly giving it all away.” 
1 can almost see the look of fond affection which she 
then bestowed upon him as she made reply: “Yes, my 
lord, I know that you are a man who believes in 
providing for his own, and I know that you would not 
make such a foolish blunder as to give it all away.” 
And then came the fatal day when he came, with all the 
attitude of great piety, before the apostles and made 
the gift of a part of the money, claiming that he had 
given it all. How swift and terrible was the result of 
his lie to the Holy Spirit! How tersely and yet fully 
does the divine writer tell the story: “But Peter said, 
Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the 


340 


The Resurrection Gospel 


Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the 
land? While it remained, did it not remain thine own? 
and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? How 
is it, then, that thou hast conceived this thing in thy 
heart ? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 
And Ananias hearing these words fell down and gave 
up the ghost: and great fear came upon all that heard 
it. And the young men arose and wrapped him round, 
and they carried him out and buried him” (Acts 
5:3-7). 

1. Ananias was a fool because he tried to play the 
double game. How many have tried this and failed, 
for the man who tries to hold to the hand of God, 
and at the same time serve the devil, will always fail. 
There is no game so indicative of absolute folly as the 
double game. So many are playing it to-day. If there 
was ever an age when men were living double lives, 
certainly that age is now. “Be sure your sin will 
find you out.” There is an eye ever seeing, and though 
we may for a time be successful in hiding our wicked¬ 
ness from the eyes of men, that all-seeing eye is 
watching us; and the finger that ever writes down the 
deeds of men will be recording it for the opening of 
the books on the last day. To the hypocrite there is 
no verse in the Bible more terrible than the statement 
of the writer of the Hebrew letter: “And there is no 
creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things 
are naked and laid open before the eyes of him with 
whom we have to do” (Heb. 4:13). God sees and 
knows, and not only will you be found out here, but you 
are already found out in His sight. 

2. Ananias was a fool also because he tried to lie 
to God. He tried to cheat the Lord. And are there 


The Four Biggest Fools 


341 


not those who hear this message to-day, who perhaps 
have been blameless in other regards, who are as guilty 
as this hypocrite of old? You say that the possessions 
which you hold are your own; that you have by your 
own labor made then, or that, because of the labor of 
your fathers, they are yours to-day ? Ah! but are they 
yours? Is it not true that you are but the trustee 
of them, the steward? They are the possession of God, 
and you are His if you have been purchased by the 
blood of the Lord. You can not, you dare not, say 
that you may do as you please with that which belongs 
to Him. If I were to be untrue to the gospel commands 
of the King, and were to say that this church would 
receive men and women into its membership without 
baptism, there would be many who would immediately 
demand that I resign my work because I would be a 
heretic of the worst type. But there are some in every 
congregation who are heretics to the great world pro¬ 
gram of the Lord, and feel themselves to be in the 
right path. Remember that money is but coined life, 
and, if you withhold it from His service, you are 
withholding just that much life. The man who steals 
from God is as much a criminal as the one who steals 
from men. 

IV. The Avaricious Fool of the Text. 

He was a rich man. He was prosperous, for his 
crops had been bounteous and his barns were running 
over with goods. What should he do, for he had not 
where to bestow all his grain and his fruits? At last 
there came the answer, and in the words of Jesus Him¬ 
self, as He tells the story to His wondering audience, 
he said: “This will I do: I will pull down my barns, 


342 


The Resurrection Gospel 


and I will build greater; and there will I bestow all 
my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, 
Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; 
take thine ease; eat, drink, be merry” (Luke 12:18, 
19). What a picture of materialism we have here! 
A man who thinks only in terms of the here and now, 
who has not a thought for the future. 

1. Notice that he was not a fool because he was rich. 
Money makes fools out of some, but not out of all. I 
have no patience with the man who thinks that because 
a man is rich he necessarily is a knave and a fool. I 
believe it is a man’s Christian duty to make all 
the money he can, but not to can all the money 
he makes. Paul teaches us that it is right to be 
diligent in business. It is right for a man to be rich, 
if he is right in the use of those riches. How much 
more powerful one can be if he is wealthy. If his 
philosophy of money is correct, if he realizes that he is 
a servant of the Lord and that he must use his Lord’s 
money in the Lord’s way, what a blessing he can be to 
the world! No, this man was not a fool because he 
was rich. 

2. He was not a fool because his ground was pro¬ 
ductive. This showed his wisdom, because he was a 
worker. He had cultivated his soil, and his broad 
acres burdened with grain, his beautiful orchards 
groaning under the weight of ripe, luscious fruit, were 
proud testimonials to his energy and providence. He 
was a vigorous, successful man of the world. He had 
done the work, and God had given him the harvest. 
The fact that his barns had to be rebuilt was a sign 
of his wonderful ability and foresight. 


The Four Biggest Fools 


343 


3. He was a fool, first of all, because of the state¬ 
ment to his soul: “Take thine ease; eat, drink, be 

merry.’* He wanted to feed his soul on the things 
of the here and now. He was of the earth, earthy. 
His whole thought was centered upon temporal things. 
He wanted to feed his soul on wheat and oats, houses 
and lands, automobiles, cotton, fine horses. He had 
no time for anything or any one; he was self-centered, 
thinking only of the present. 

4. He was a fool because he was selfish. “What 

shall I do with my goods?” A little child might be 

starving and because he had been careless. A man 
near him had lost his home, and with broken spirit 
and heart had become a beggar. What cared he? A 
nation across the sea was afflicted with famine. It was 
none of his business. ‘ ‘ What shall I do with my 
goods ? Ah! this will I do; I will tear down my barns, 
and I will build greater, and there will I bestow all 
my grain and my fruits. I will keep it for myself.” 

5. He was a fool because he prepared for this life, 
and made no preparation for the future. He had 
no time for the future, because all his time was taken 
with the cares and the duties of the present. He did 
not even think about it until the terrible voice from 
heaven rang its imperious call in his ears: “Thou 
foolish one, this night is thy soul required of thee; 
and the things which thou hast prepared, whose shall 
they be?” And then note the comment that Jesus 
makes upon His own parable: “ So is he that layeth up 
treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God” 
(Luke 12:20, 21). What is he, Lord and Master? A 
fool. It is harsh language, but how true! 


XV. 

THE DIVINE NAME 


Texts. —“But if a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be 
ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name.”—1 Pet. 4: 16. 

“Do not they blaspheme the honorable name by which ye are 
called! “—Jas. 2: 7. 

I N this sermon on the divine name there is no in¬ 
tention on the part of the author to make an attack 
on any individual or communion; and although, in the 
discussion, the names of some religious bodies may 
be used to a certain extent, the spirit in which they 
are employed is meant to be at all times courteous 
and charitable. One must, however, be lucid in every 
statement in order that the truth may be clearly set 
forth before all. 

Now, as the church of Christ is a divine institu¬ 
tion, founded by the Son of God and upon the granite 
truth of the deity of that Son, we would expect to 
find that the name by which it is to be differentiated 
from all other institutions would be a divine name. 
We would also expect that the individual members who 
constitute the church would be called by a name, 
divine, different and infinitely transcending all earthly 
names in that it would be bestowed by the Father 
Himself. In our text James refers to “that worthy 
name by which ye are called,’’ and it is our purpose 
here to find out just what that name was, for if the 

344 


The Divine Name 


345 


same conditions which were binding upon the people 
to whom James writes are binding to-day upon us, 
then we also should be called by the same name which 
was worn by them. 

ARGUMENT. 

I. Some Objections to Human Names, as Now Worn 
by Followers of Christ. 

The almost innumerable human names which are 
worn by those who profess to be God’s people are 
open to many serious objections, some of which we 
want to consider briefly before we proceed to the dis¬ 
cussion of “that worthy name.” 

1. In the first place, human names are wrong and 
directly antagonistic to the very spirit of the teach¬ 
ing of Christ, because they are divisive in character. 
Christ prayed that His people might remain one 
people (John 17). Paul teaches that if we are divided, 
we are “carnal and walk as men” (1 Cor. 1:10-24). 
Anything which erects itself as “a wall of partition,” 
no matter how revered or deeply imbedded in the 
memory of a people it may be, is diametrically opposed 
to the desire of the Master and His apostles, that God’s 
people should ever be one. And human names do 
divide. The Methodist refuses to be called a Baptist, 
or the Presbyterian, a Congregationalist. Each wears 
his own denominational name and clings to it with a 
tenacity born of a prejudice built up by years of 
denominational wrangling. Let all party names be for¬ 
gotten, and one of the greatest barriers to the con¬ 
summation of a glorious union of God’s children will 
be broken down. 


346 


The Resurrection Gospel 


2. Again, human names are objectionable because 
they honor the wrong person, ordinance or institution. 
To call God’s people ‘‘Campbellites’’ means that the 
honor for founding a church is conferred on Mr. 
Campbell, even though he firmly denied that he pos¬ 
sessed any authority to organize a church or that he 
had ever even thought of founding one. Such names 
as “Wesleyan” and “Lutheran” are other illustrations 
of the attempt to crown with honor men to whose hum¬ 
ble Christian piety such honor was little less than re¬ 
pugnant, because they so clearly recognized that they 
were not in any way worthy of it, and because they 
knew well to whom that honor belonged. Why honor 
them thus? Were they founders of the church of 
God? Who said, “Upon this rock I will build my 
church”? (Matt. 16:18). Who was it who said, “I 
go to prepare a place for you, that where I am, there 
ye may be also, ” or, “ Father, forgive them; they know 
not what they do.”? Did Luther, Wesley or Campbell 
die for our sins? Is it through them that we are 
promised a home eternal? If Christ is the founder, 
the head, the Savior, should we not honor Him by 
wearing His name ? Let us give honor to whom 
honor is due. When we wear, as a church name, 
the name of one of the great religious leaders, we are 
honoring the wrong person as the chief one in the 
•church. 

If we exalt an ordinance, such as the ordinance 
of Christian baptism, into the prominent position of 
a church name, we are again guilty of wrongfully be¬ 
stowing honor. It is not baptism nor our belief in 
baptism which we should exalt, neither our belief 
in the spiritual oversight of the elders, nor of con- 


The Divine Name 


347 


gregational government, but the founder, the builder, 
the head of the church, our Lord Jesus Christ. 

3. A third objection to the interminable maze 
of human names is that it acts as a stumbling-block 
to the sinner. Each name represents a distinct people, 
or church, and as the sinful man, desirous of being as 
near right as possible, wanders from place to place, 
his hope of finding the right path becomes deep despair, 
and he cries aloud: “Oh, what shall I do? Where 
shall I go? What name shall I wear?” Many a sin- 
sick one has been lost simply because he could not 
find the path of God in the maze of humanisms con¬ 
structed through centuries by man. 

II. What Name Did Christ’s Disciples Wear after 
the Establishment of the Church on the 
Day of Pentecost? 

1. The first place in which we find the divine 
name used is in the cosmopolitan city of Antioch. In 
Acts 11:26, Luke says that “the disciples were called 
Christians first at Antioch.” But at once the ques¬ 
tions are asked: “Who gave them the name? Is it 
not a fact that the name was given to them in de¬ 
rision or as a title of reproach? Was it not a term 
employed by the pagan enemies of Christianity to ex¬ 
press their contempt of the followers of Christ?” 
Many of our modem denominations have received 
their names in precisely this manner. In derision or 
as a nickname the term “Methodist” was used first by 
Oxford students concerning the Holy Club of the 
university, formed for purposes of prayer and re¬ 
ligious meditation by John and Charles Wesley. From 
this Methodical club the Methodist societies were 


348 


The Resurrection Gospel 


named, and afterwards the great Methodist Episcopal 
Church. Now, did not the disciples receive their name 
‘ ‘ Christian ’ ’ in much the same manner as a nickname, 
or title of ridicule? 

About the most accurate, and perhaps the only cor¬ 
rect, method of determining the answer to this very 
widely misunderstood question is to find out the ex¬ 
act meaning of the original Greek verb translated in 
our English versions “were called.” The verb is 
chrematizo, from the noun chrematismos , which means 
“an oracle.” The verb, therefore, means “to speak 
as an oracle, to be divinely warned, to be called or 
named from a divine source.” Always when this word 
is used it is in the sense of a divine call, warning or 
command. Whenever the words “to be warned” or “to 
be called” are used in a human sense alone the Greek 
verbs employed are either kaleo (Matt. 10:13; Gal. 5: 
8; Luke 1:31; Matt. 10:25) or upodeiknumi (Matt. 
3:7; Luke 3:7; 6:47; 12:5; Acts 9:16; 20:35). 
Never in the New Testament are these verbs used in 
the sense of a warning or a command or a calling, in 
the form of the bestowal of a name, execpt as emana¬ 
ting from human sources. When the Divine is men¬ 
tioned as the source of such warnings or commands, 
the verb chrematizo is always used. 

Nine times in the New Testament the verb chrema¬ 
tizo is translated with this divine sense clearly indi¬ 
cated. And if Acts 11:26 were correctly translated, 
it would be given there also. For purposes of com¬ 
parison the places where chrematizo is used are here 
listed. The version referred to is the American Stan¬ 
dard Revised. 


The Divine Name 


349 


Matt. 2:12: “ And being warned of God in a dream 
[chrematisthentes] that they should not return to 
Herod, they departed into their own country another 
way.” 

Matt. 2:22: ‘ ‘ But when he heard that Archelaus 
was reigning over Judaea in the room of his father 
Herod, he was afraid to go thither; and being warned 
of God in a dream [chrematitheis ], he withdrew into 
the parts of Galilee.” 

Luke 2:26: “And it had been revealed to him by 
the Holy Spirit [ kechrematismenon ] that he should not 
see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.” 

Acts 10:22: “ And they said, Cornelius, a cen¬ 
turion, a righteous man, and one that feareth God, 
and well reported of by all the nation of the Jews, 
was warned of God by a holy angel [echrematisthe] to 
send for thee into his house, and to hear words from 
thee. ’ ’ 

Rom. 7:3: “So then if, while the husband liveth, 
she be joined to another man, she shall be called 
[chrematisei] an adulteress: but if the husband die, 
she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, 
thought she be joined to another man.” The sense 
here in which the woman should be called an adul¬ 
teress is clearly the divine sense, in that the law con¬ 
cerning this case first originates with God. 

Rom. 11:4: “But what saith the answer of God 
unto him? [Chrematismos] I have left for myself 
seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to 
Baal.” In this passage chrematismos is used in almost 
identically the same sense as if it were an oracle 
speaking. 


350 


The Resurrection Gospel 


Heb. 8:4, 5: “Now if he were on earth he would 
not be a priest at all, seeing there are those who offer 
the gifts according to the law, who serve that which 
is a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as 
Moses is warned of God [Kechrematisai] when he is 
about to make the tabernacle; for, see, saith he, 
that thou make all things according to the pattern 
that was showed thee in the mount.” 

Heb. 11:7: “By faith Noah, being warned of God 
[clirematistheis] concerning things not seen as yet, 
moved with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving 
of his house; through which he condemned the world 
and became heir of the righteousness which is accord¬ 
ing to faith.” 

Heb. 12:25: “See that ye refuse not him that 
speaketh. For if they escaped not when they refused 
him that warned them on earth, much more shall not 
we escape who turned away from him that warneth 
from heaven ” ( chrematizonta ). 

Acts 11:26: “And it came to pass, that even for a 
whole year they were gathered together with the 
church, and taught much people; and that the dis¬ 
ciples were called [chrematisai] Christians first in 
Antioch. ’ ’ 

In all of these passages the indisputable meaning 
of the word chrematizo is “divinely called,” or “called 
of God.” In Acts 11:26, however, the meaning is not 
made as clear in our English versions as it might be. 
If the sentence had been translated just exactly as it 
reads, there would have been no doubt about the mat¬ 
ter at all. The part of the verse, “Chrematisai te pro- 
tos en Antiocheia tous mathetas Christianous,” would 
then have been, “and the disciples were divinely called 


The Divine Name 


351 


Christians first at Antioch.” Such a rendering as this 
would then have corresponded with the translations 
given the word chrematizo in the other passages in 
which it is used. If this correct rendering had been 
given, all the questions and disputes as to whether 
or not the name was given in derision would obviously 
have been impossible. 

Meyer’s Commentary on Acts, which as an author¬ 
ity in this realm has but few peers, concerning Acts 
11:26 makes this statement: “There is nothing to 
support the view that the term (Christian) was first 
used as a title of ridicule” (p. 223). 

Dr. John Straub, dean of the College of Literature, 
Science and Arts, and for forty-five years head of the 
department of Greek at the University of Oregon, and 
easily one of the most eminent authorities on Greek in 
the United States, a Presbyterian in belief, in referring 
to this verse says: “There is no good reason why any 
one should think that the disciples were called Chris¬ 
tians in derision. The very meaning of the noun chre- 
matismos , from which the verb chrematizo is derived, 
precludes any such idea.” 

There is, therefore, not one iota of doubt from the 
original meaning of the word, and from the position 
occupied by the scholarship of the world, that the 
disciples were “divinely called” Christians, or '‘called 
of God,” first at Antioch. 

And why first at Antioch! Why should the Lord 
choose this place as the one where, for the first time, 
the gift of the new name should be bestowed upon His 
people? The religion of the Christ was to be a uni¬ 
versal religion, world-wide, cosmopolitan, a gospel 
preached “to every creature.” All social and racial 


352 


The Resurrection Gospel 


barriers were to be leveled, and there was to be neither 
Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor 
female, but all were to be one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 
3:28). 

The Jerusalem church was not a cosmopolitan 
church, because its membership was made up entirely 
of Jews. It was not, therefore, representative of the 
world-wide character of the new religion. Its mem¬ 
bers clung fiercely to many of the Jewish customs, not 
realizing that the gospel message was to be proclaimed 
to the whole world. The new name could not, there¬ 
fore, be properly given to them until they became 
world-wide in their conception of the divine message. 
No church could be truly Christian until all party 
spirit had been destroyed and until the eyes of its 
membership had been anointed with the glorious mis¬ 
sionary vision. The Antiochian church was the first 
one under the new dispensation to number among its 
constituency both Jews and Gentiles. It could properly 
have been said of them that they were neither Jew 
nor Greek, but that they were all one in Christ Jesus. 
Racial distinctions were forgotten; social walls, if not 
entirely destroyed, were far less frequently emphasized. 
This church was also the first one to realize the world¬ 
wide missionary obligation, and from its doors were 
sent forth Barnabas and Saul, the first missionary am¬ 
bassadors of the King from the first missionary church 
to take to the world, regardless of race or previous 
religious affiliations, the joyous evangel of the cross. 
Antioch was the first place where the meaning of 
Christ’s statement, “Ye shall be my witnesses both in 
Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto 
the uttermost part of the earth,” first became clearly 


The Divine Name 


353 


apparent to His disciples. How befitting, then, that 
at Antioch, a city itself the meeting-place for all na¬ 
tions, the birthplace of the first church truly repre¬ 
sentative of the new religion in that in its worship for 
the first time Jew and Gentile disciples mingled on 
the common plane of brotherhood in Christ, the place 
from which were sent forth the first missionaries to 
all men, that here the wonderful new name should 
first be divinely given. 

But suppose, for argument’s sake, it should be 
granted that the name “Christian” was given to 
Christ’s disciples by pagan or heathen peoples as a 
term of reproach or ridicule, could a name more ex¬ 
pressive of the spirit of the new religion or of the 
redeemed’s relation to the Redeemer be given, even 
by the Father Himself? The whole system is Christ- 
filled. It is founded upon Christ; it is headed by 
Christ. Men are to believe in and be obedient to 
Christ in order to be saved from sin. Christ is Alpha 
and Omega, beginning and end; He is Lord of all! 
Redeemer, Savior, Sacrifice and Judge. The whole 
system is Christ. How glorious, then, that the saved, 
the redeemed, the obedient man should be named a 
Christ-i-an one! How wonderfully expressive is the 
term “Christ-i-an” or “Christ-one,” of that marvel¬ 
ously beautiful relation existing between the saved and 
the Savior! Paul states this relationship when he says: 
“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did 
put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). “Buried with him 
through baptism,” we become a part of the world¬ 
wide soul-saving system which is Christ. We become 
“one of Christ” or a “Christ-one.” 

23 


354 


The Resurrection Gospel 


Thus, even were it possible to establish the posi¬ 
tion that the disciples were called Christians first in 
derision, yet we would be forced to conclude that in 
their choice of a derisive term those pagan or heathen 
peoples by whom it was first used in Antioch were 
guided by the Father Himself. 

2. The second use of the term * ‘ Christian ’ ’ recorded 
in the New Testament is in Acts 26:28. King Agrip- 
pa had been listening with intense interest and eyes 
wide with wonder to that masterpiece of pleas made 
by Paul in defense of his Lord and in the attempt to 
persuade the king to follow also the teachings of the 
Nazarene. All of Paul’s great exhortations were with 
the view to persuasion, and on this occasion, which 
he recognized as one of life’s opportunities, every 
natural endowment, emphasized by his pure Spirit- 
filled soul, glowed in his every word and gesture as 
he threw his best self into the effort to bring the love 
of Christ into the heart of the dissolute Agrippa. 
And the king, in semi-ironical vein, almost laughingly 
replies: “Paul, with but little persuasion thou wouldst 
fain make me a Christian” (Acts 26:28). Then 
Paul, completely disclosing the purpose of his master¬ 
ful plea, as he holds up his hands bound with the 
great prisoner’s chain, speaks the generous answer of 
a noble soul: “I would to God that whether with little 
or with much, not thou only, but also all that hear me 
this day, were such as I am except these bonds” (Acts 
26:29). 

3. The third and last time that the name “Chris¬ 
tian” is used in the New Testament is found in Peter’s 
first Epistle (4:16): “Yet if any man suffer as a 
Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify 


The Divine Name 


355 


God [en to onomati touto ] in this name.” Peter was 
here writing by the inspiration of the Spirit. If he 
was inspired by the Spirit, then he must be giving 
the message of the Spirit. If this is the message of 
the Spirit, then the words, “Let him glorify God in 
this name,” must of a truth be the very words of the 
Spirit. If, then, even were it true that the disciples 
were called Christians in derision, the Holy Spirit 
sanctions the term, and not only sanctions it, but tells 
us to “glorify God in this name.” 

But some one objects, saying: “I am a Christian 
and I do wear the name, but I am a Baptist, Method¬ 
ist or Presbyterian Christian. If I am a Christian, 
even though I am wearing another name, am I not 
glorifying God?” Acknowledging, my brother, that 
your intention is good, still to the thinking man, even 
though you be a Christian, the very fact that before 
the world you wear, for instance, the name “Methodist,” 
shows that you are glorifying a nickname rather than 
God through the name which is itself a glorification 
of His Son. Or if before men you wear the name 
“Baptist,” you are glorifying the ordinance of baptism 
rather than the One who commanded baptism. If you 
wear the name “ Congregationalist, ” you glorify or ex¬ 
alt a form of church polity rather than the One who 
was the author of that form. The one who wears the 
name “Presbyterian” is glorifying the form of church 
government by the presbytery or elders rather than 
the Father through the divinely appointed name. We 
are commanded to glorify, to exalt and to magnifiy 
the Father in the name “Christian.” We are to be 
known before the world as Christians, and in any and 
every way that we can advance the kingdom of God 


356 


The Resurrection Gospel 


we are to do so, wearing this wonderful name. Oh, 
glorious name! oh, wonderful name so proudly worn 
by Paul and Barnabas, Peter and John, given by the 
Father as a name of honor, sanctioned by the Holy 
Spirit as a name of glory and power! 

But now, what shall we do with the name “dis¬ 
ciple”? Are we not disciples of Christ, and, if so, 
why not wear that name? To-day we read in many of 
our papers about the “Disciples of Christ” and in¬ 
variably the word “disciples” is capitalized. The name 
“Disciple,” when so capitalized, is as denominational, 
and therefore as divisive in character, as any of those 
denominational or sectarian names which some of these 
very brethren who use the term so ardently oppose. 
Let us be consistent. Let us shun sectarianism as 
though it were a plague. Let us not condemn others 
for doing that of which we may be guilty ourselves. 
We are disciples, but we are more. We are obedient 
disciples. We are redeemed disciples. A disciple is 
a mathetes —a learner. A man may be a mathetes (or 
learner) of Christ, and never be a Christian at all. 
A Christian is not only a disciple, or learner, but he 
is an obedient disciple; he puts into practice what he 
learns. Nicodemus was a disciple, or learner, but, as 
far as we know, he never became a “Christ-one,” an 
obedient follower of Christ. Joseph of Arimathaea 
was a disciple, but he did not possess the courage to 
become a Christian. The name “Christian” means so 
much more than disciple! It comprehends all of the 
meaning of disciple, and more. After the Antioch 
church is established and God’s people receive for the 
first time the vision of a world-wide conquest for the 
King, the disciples are the recipients of a new name, 


The Divine Name 


357 


and the Holy Spirit, using Peter merely as the trans¬ 
mitting agency, exhorts us to “glorify God in that 
name.’ ’ 

Because the people of the great Restoration move¬ 
ment have contended so firmly and uncompromisingly 
for those names by which the members of the apostolic 
church were called, and because they have preached 
that the church, as a body, should wear the names 
that were worn by it in the beginning, they have 
frequently been accused of arrogating to themselves 
a monopoly on these very names. The question has 
many times been asked of them: “Are you the only 
Christians? Do you not consider it selfish to wear 
this name? Do you not, by wearing it, unchristianize 
others?” Like the Yankee, we would ask our inter¬ 
rogators the question, “Are you the only Baptists?” 
We believe in baptism, and practice it. Every man 
who baptizes is a baptist. Are you the only Congre- 
gationalists ? We use the congregational form of 
church polity. Do you not consider it selfish to wear 
the name? Do you not uncongregationalize us if you 
are Congregationalists? Are you the only Methodists? 
We are methodical in our work for the Master. Are 
you not selfish in wearing the name? Are you the 
only Presbyterians? We believe in the spiritual super¬ 
vision or oversight of the bishops or elders. Do you 
not selfishly unpresbyterianize us by wearing the name? 

We have never claimed that we are the only Chris¬ 
tians, but that we are Christians only, and that claim 
is the very opposite of selfishness; it is indeed the 
very essence of unselfishness. Every obedient believer 
in Christ is a “Christ-one,” and is so recognized by 
us, and just as long as he glorifies God in that name 


358 


The Resurrection Gospel 


he is unselfish because it is the name which all true 
followers of Christ love. It is a stumbling-block to 
none; all are willing to wear it, all are agreed that 
it is right, and it never acts as a factor of division. 
A man becomes selfish only when he adds to that name 
another of human origin, for he thus erects a denomi¬ 
national or sectional wall between himself and his 
brother. He becomes narrow because he refuses fellow¬ 
ship to him who may already be a Christian, unless 
that one also upholds the barrier by himself wearing a 
denominational or unscriptural name. To wear the 
name “Christian” is the glorious privilege of all of 
God’s children, and because I realize it and appro¬ 
priate the blessing, am I any the less thoughtful of you ? 
or, because I enjoy it, am I thereby wronging you? 
No! no! If you are slighting your God-given privi¬ 
lege, the blame must attach to yourself, for it is due to 
your own neglect and not to any desire to be selfish 
on our part. We could not deprive you of it, and, if 
we could do so, we would not. It is yours; take it, 
wear it and in it glorify your God. 

‘‘Well,” inquires one, “what’s in a name, anyway? 
I don’t think the name makes any difference.” It is, 
however, very noticeable that those who ask this ques¬ 
tion as a rule flatly refuse to wear any so-called re¬ 
ligious name other than the one which they already 
wear. People sometimes fight over their religious 
names. A Methodist refuses to be called a Baptist, 
or a Congregationalism a Mormon. A name means 
something; indeed, every name worn by the great 
denominations emphasizes some doctrine peculiar to 
that particular people by which it is worn. And this 
is so beautifully true of the name “Christian.” It ex- 


The Divine Name 


359 


alts a person—Christ; it glorifies the individual because 
it makes known to the world that he is a “ Christ-one. ’ ’ 

Then, again, we will agree that most men usually 
love their own family names pretty well. Although 
your name may be good, and even famous, and 
although the sound of it may be rhythmically beauti¬ 
ful, like the musical name “Jones’’ or “Smith,” yet 
frankly I prefer the old Irish “Kellems” to either of 
the two mentioned. I would not exchange my name 
with George Washington or “Teddy” Roosevelt, or 
even, though the temptation might be strong, with 
William Jennings Bryan himself. I am satisfied with 
my own because it means something to me. 

Suppose that some day your wife would come to 
you and say: “Now, I like your name pretty well; I 
think it is nice and I enjoy the sound of it, and all 
that, but I like the name Smith better; so hereafter I 
shall be known as Mrs. Smith.” In such a case as 
that, think you, would there be anything in a name? 
Or, again, suppose that your rich uncle should die, 
leaving a will in which he bequeaths to one John A. 
Jones the sum of one million dollars. If your name 
was John A. Jones, and there wasn’t another in the 
world, would there be anything in the name? 

In God’s word a name is considered to be of 
value. Jesus says: “Thus it is written, and thus it 
behooved Christ to suffer, and that repentance and 
remission of sin should be preached in his name unto 
all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 
24:46, 47). Christ surely considers a name here to 
be of importance. We are baptized into a name, 
and it certainly makes a difference what name it is. 
“Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 


360 


The Resurrection Gospel 


them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I 
am with you always, even unto the end of the world” 
(Matt. 28:19, 20). Peter tells us that we are bap¬ 
tized in a name, as he speaks to the multitudes on the 
day of Pentecost: “Repent ye, and be baptized every 
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remis¬ 
sion of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the 
Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). If I, to-day, were to im¬ 
merse a man in the name of Martin Luther, John 
Wesley or Alexander Campbell, would it be a valid 
Christian baptism? Certainly not. It is made a bap¬ 
tism only when the seal of the Father, Son and Holy 
Spirit is affixed. We are baptized only when we are 
immersed in and into a name. 

When Paul came to Ephesus in one of his later 
journeys, he found there certain disciples who had been 
baptized unto John’s baptism. After thoroughly 
questioning them about it, he said unto them: “John 
baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to 
the people that they should believe on him who should 
come after him, that is, on Jesus. And when they 
heard this they were baptized into the name of the 
Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:4, 5). Their baptism under the 
new dispensation was invalid unless it wore the seal 
of the Lord Jesus. 

Barnabas and Paul risked their lives again and 
again for a name. “It seemed good unto us, having 
come to one accord, to choose out men and send 
them unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 
men who have hazarded their lives for the name of 
our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 15:25, 26). Paul tells 


The Divine Name 


361 


us that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess 
a name. “ Therefore also God highly exalted him, 
and gave unto him a name which is above every name, 
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of 
things in heaven, and things on earth, and things un¬ 
der the earth, and that every tongue should confess 
that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the 
Father’’ (Phil. 2:9-11). Life and salvation are to 
be given in one name, and one only. “And in none 
other is there salvation; for neither is there any other 
name under heaven that is given among men wherein 
we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). 

If repentance, forgiveness, remission of sins, life 
and salvation are only important when preached in a 
name, then there must surely be something in that 
name. 

During the last Presidential campaign there was an 
attitude taken by both of the great political parties in 
which I greatly rejoiced. It was an attitude which ex¬ 
pressed itself in favor of clean-cut Americanism. If 
a man comes to this beautiful land of ours from En¬ 
gland, he is no longer to be called an Anglo-American, 
but just an American. If he comes here from France 
to make this his home, he is not to be a Franco-Ameri¬ 
can, but just an American. We want the people of our 
country to be Americans, and Americans only. It was 
an attitude against hyphenism. And why not apply 
this to our Christian experience! Why not cut out the 
hyphen and be no longer Methodist, Baptist, Presby¬ 
terian Christians, but just plain Christians—Chris¬ 
tians only? Brethren, cut out the hyphen. 

The followers of Christ, even though they have 
worn human names, have neverthless always con- 


362 


The Resurrection Gospel 


sidered that there was something in the divine name 
< ‘ Christian. ’ ’ It has ever been to them, and is to-day, 
a name by which to conjure. When they have wished 
to charm the world, they have invariably used “that 
worthy name.” 

When that young Congregational pastor, Francis 
E. Clark, at the close of a great revival in the church 
of which he was minister, saw that a society must be 
formed to hold the young people and give them a 
clearer conception of the opportunities of the Christ- 
life, he gave it the name “Young People’s Society of 
Christian Endeavor.” In honor of its founder it might 
have been called “Young People’s Society of Congre¬ 
gational Endeavor,” but when a name is wanted to 
lend enthusiasm to the movement, the name ‘ ‘ Chris¬ 
tian ’ ’ must be employed. When an organization was 
formed to meet, in a practical way, the needs of young 
manhood along moral and spiritual lines—an organiza¬ 
tion in which, under the direction of spiritually 
minded men, young men might enjoy a man’s sports 
in a man’s way and at the same time receive whole¬ 
some, spiritual nurture—the name given to the organi¬ 
zation was “The Young Men’s Christian Association.” 

When among women an organized movement was 
launched against the legalized liquor traffic, that which 
gave it its first great impetus and caused it to sweep 
like an irresistible avalanche over the whole continent 
was the charming name which it bore, “The Woman’s 
Christian Temperance Union.” Now, it might have 
been the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian or Congre¬ 
gational Union, but when a name was needed which 
would charm and win, that name was found in the 
sublime word “Christian.” 


The Divine Name 


363 


When the denominational world wanted a name 
which would attract attention to the literature which 
they wished to send out, they found in 11 Christian ’ ’ the 
name which would make it universally acceptable to 
all. The Methodist Church, with its great chain of 
Advocates stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, 
might have largely exalted the name “Methodist” by 
entitling their paper Methodist Advocate, but they 
wisely chose to honor and glorify the divine name; 
for upon every issue of their magnificent paper we 
read with delight the name Christian Advocate. 

Presbyterianism might have emphasized the rule 
of the presbytery by applying the name “Presbyterian” 
to their official organ, but they decided far better 
when they gave to it a name which would not only 
bespeak for it a ready acceptance, but would more 
faithfully represent the spirit in which the paper was 
issued, The Christian Observer. When Methodism 
sent out to the world a magazine which should be as 
undenominational as possible, and which should act as 
a forum where all alike might express free opinion on 
religious questions, it wore the name Christian Herald. 

Those great weeklies of the Restoration movement, 
so devoted as they are to glorifying God in the name 
“Christian,” wear names which are highly significant 
of the plea of the people of whom they claim to be rep¬ 
resentative organs^ The Christian Standard, The 
Christian-Evangelist, and The Christian Century. 
If those papers which bear upon their title-pages the 
name “Christian” were destroyed, 75 per cent, of the 
world’s religious literature would perish. The great 
denominations have realized the peculiar power and 
charm of the divine name when used upon their re- 


364 


The Resurrection Gospel 


ligious literature, even though their individual mem¬ 
bers refuse to wear that name as the only one in which 
to glorify God. It is worse than foolish for any man 
to say that there is nothing in a name. 

III. Five Reasons Why Every Follower of Christ 
Should Wear the Name “Christian,” 
and That Alone. 

1. The church is declared to be the bride of Christ, 
and the bride must always wear the husband’s name. 
Paul most confidently affirms this when, in writing to 
the Corinthian brethren, he says: “I am jealous over 
you with a godly jealousy, for I espoused you to one 
husband that I might present you as a pure virgin to 
Christ” (2 Cor. 11:2). If the church is the bride 
of Christ, then let her not wear the name of others, but 
let her be true to her husband and wear His name. 

2. Simple and complete obedience to Christ makes 
a man a Christian, and a Christian only. When we 
are baptized into Christ, and by that action put on 
Christ, we become * ‘ Christ-ones, ” and any action be¬ 
yond this by which another name is added is an 
action unauthorized by the King. The modern union 
revival often furnishes a striking example of this ac¬ 
tion by which a name other than “Christian” is added. 
After the revival is over and six or eight hundred 
conversions have been accomplished, if these con¬ 
verts have listened to the gospel and to the very best 
of their knowledge have become obedient to that gospel, 
what are they? Why, they are Christians, of course. 
True, they are Christians. Now, if they are permitted 
to remain as they are, what will they be? Without 
a doubt they would still be Christians. But if on the 


The Divine Name 


365 


last day of the revival the ministers representing the 
different denominations which have been so earnestly 
co-operating in the union effort to save men, arise, 
as they have so many times done, and call out to these 
newly made Christians, “All desiring to be Methodists 
come with me,” or, “All wishing to be Baptists come 
with me,” and so on until all have spoken, what 
process was it that made the converts Methodists, Bap¬ 
tists, Congregationalists or Presbyterians? Was it their 
obedience to the commands of Jesus Christ? Assur¬ 
edly not, for such obedience made them “ Christ-ones. ” 
Well, then, what was the action? It was one over and 
beyond the law of the Teacher. In the union revival 
they united to make Christians; after it was over, 
they divided to make sectarians. When, by virtue of 
faith in Christ, and obedience to His law, men are 
made Christian, why not allow them to remain such? 

3. A third obvious reason why every disciple should 
wear the divine name, and that alone, is that the truly 
great reformers and leaders of God’s people have 
desired it and have earnestly entreated their followers 
to wear it. Luther, the majestic marshal of the 
forces of German reformation, exhorts his followers: 
“Do not call yourselves Lutherans, but call your¬ 
selves Christians. ” 

Wesley, brilliant, and still the humble, Spirit-guided 
Christian, cries out as he sees the impending evil of 
division: “I would to God all party names were for¬ 
gotten. ’ ’ 

Alexander Campbell, the gifted advocate of the 
unification of God’s people, urges upon all true lovers 
of God, “Abandon all party names and take the name 
'Christian.’ ” 


366 


The Resurrection Gospel 


Paul, veteran of a thousand battles for the name, 
deplores schism and contention: “Now this I mean, 
that some of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, 
and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? 
Was Paul crucified for you or were ye baptized into 
the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:12, 13). These and 
others of God’s heroes, realizing that they were un¬ 
worthy of the grand honor of having the church named 
after them, and knowing that such an action could only 
result in sectarianism and denominationalism among 
the people of God, have earnestly desired that their 
followers should wear the name divinely given first at 
Antioch. 

Do we not, therefore, do them injury rather than 
honor when we, against their expressed wishes that 
we wear the divine name, call ourselves by their 
names ? 

4. The name “Christian” should also be worn by 
every disciple who loves Christ and desires the ad¬ 
vancement of His Kingdom, because it is absolutely 
the only name upon which Christian unity can be 
consummated, when that time shall come that God’s 
people, seeing the folly of a divided Christendom, will 
join their hands and hearts for the final conquest of 
the nations. Christian unity is coming. It must 
come. The forces of Christ are at last opening their 
eyes to the stern fact that unity will mean life and 
victory; disunion, ruin and death. When that unity 
comes, to it must be given a name, and surely that 
name will be the one upon which all of the denomina¬ 
tions agree, and upon “ Christian ” they agree now. 
Concerning it, not one dissenting voice is heard. 
Every disciple redeemed will acknowledge himself to 


The Divine Name 


367 


be a Christian, although, before the world, he may 
wear a name human in origin and divisive in char¬ 
acter. If, then, one desires to see the glorious unity 
of God’s people brought to pass, let him divorce him¬ 
self from everything which will in any way act as a 
barrier to the accomplishment of that desire. Human 
names are barriers to unity; the divine name is that 
under which it can and will be brought to pass. 

5. The divine name is declared by Paul to be the 
great family name. “For this cause I bow my knees 
unto the Father, from whom every family in heaven 
and on earth is named” (Eph. 3:14, 15). Oh, how 
beautiful is the thought which he here expresses! 
“The whole, or every, family in heaven and on earth,” 
is called by the wonderful family name. All those 
blood-washed throngs whose praises resound through¬ 
out their immortal homes—our fathers, our mothers, 
our brothers and sisters, our wives and our children, 
who have taken the journey before us—are members of 
that redeemed family of God, the wearers and shar¬ 
ers with us of “that worthy name.” As members of 
that great family should we not be glad to wear that 
name? It should be to every son of God a delight un¬ 
speakable, a joy unending. 

Conclusion. 

How glorious is the name! “If any man suffer as 
a Christian, let him not be ashamed.” And have the 
heroes of God ever been ashamed of it, even though 
because of it the keenest, most excruciating sufferings 
that fiendish Roman cruelty could devise were heaped 
upon them? On the arena’s red sands, with the howls 
of Rome’s blood-lustful thousands thundering around 


368 


The Resurrection Gospel 


them, they fought, for that name, the half-starved 
beasts of Numidia’s jungles, and as the last drop of 
Christian blood dyed the sands a deeper hue, took 
their journey home with a smile of Heaven’s own 
giving upon their lips, and a joy eternal in their 
hearts. In vats of boiling oil they sang the glories 
and praise of the name, until by the hissing death 
their voices were forever stilled. With the flames of 
Caasar’s death-fires curling and licking around them, 
with the smoke of that fire filling their nostrils, even 
to the last choking breath, they glorified, they exalted, 
they magnified the name of their God. For a name, 
Peter and John were beaten; for a name, they heard 
the clang of prison bars and felt the pressure of the 
prisoner’s chains. For a name, Paul could joyfully 
say, even though gloomy dungeon walls greeted every 
turn of his eye and with the prospect of an immediate, 
horrid death before him: “I have fought the good 
fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the 
faith; henceforth there is laid up for me the crown 
of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous Judge, 
shall give to me at that day, and not unto me only, 
but also to all them that have loved his appearing” 
(2 Tim. 4:7, 8). Oh, what delight should be ours to 
be counted worthy to wear that name, the name made 
glorious by sweat and blood and millions of noble 
deaths! Withered be our tongues and cursed our 
lips if, knowing better, we shall attempt to glorify 
our God in any name other than the name ‘ ‘ Christian. ’ ’ 















Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16068 
(724) 779-2111 






























